Craigslist Sued For Violating Fair Housing Laws 429
The Good Reverend writes "The Associated Press has a report today about online classified site CraigsList being accused in a federal lawsuit of violating fair housing laws by publishing discriminatory classified ads. Current law, which applies to newspapers, prohibits ads that discriminate on the basis of race, gender, family status, religion, all of which can be found on Craigslist."
The Actual postings... (Score:3, Insightful)
For real? (Score:4, Insightful)
Lawyers looking for work? (Score:4, Insightful)
This case is a non-starter, and the Judge should sanction the plaintiffs, IMO.
Why sue the messenger? (Score:1, Insightful)
I'm Pro Choice (Score:1, Insightful)
Bullshit. (Score:4, Insightful)
They listed:
race, gender, family status, religion
Race - although there is no good reason to discriminate based on this, some cultures have attitudes that create conflicts.
Gender - some people (maybe most) are more comfortable being roommates with the same sex.
Family Status - If I'm a college student, I don't want to be living with a single mother with a baby. That's not the housing situation you want to be in. People live very different lives and some people in some situations just don't fit together.
Religion - If I'm a christian, I probably don't want a large atheist symbol decorated around the house.
You see, in situations where it doesn't matter, discrimination is bad. In the case of living situations where roommates must get along, it's a necessity.
You can't stop the discrimination anyway. Everyone has their preferences. Whether they screen in their post or after someone calls, people will still get screened, so the attempt is largely ineffective anyway.
Housing Discrimination = better than alternative ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Suppose people feel intimidated and stop posting their preferences in the ads. They're still going to have their preference though they might not tell you. For example, suppose you are a girl, and the person is looking for a male roommate. Then you'll end up showing to see a property that the owner is not really prepared to rent out to you, wasting your time and wasting their time. I don't think anybody really wants that.
Publisher or distributor? (Score:3, Insightful)
In general, if a service makes no attempt to censor its contents, it can be considered a distributor and is not responsible for its content; thus, that is why internet news groups do not get ISPs in trouble. If Craig's list makes any attempt to regulate the content (removes postings, states criteria, etc), it is a publisher and is subject to being liable for its content. As for where they stand? That's going to be up to the court.
Re:For real? (Score:5, Insightful)
And like the sign in the garage that says 'we are not responsible for anything' it has no effect. The point of those disclaimers is that they discourage the ignorant from filing suit, not that they have legal effect. If you can proved that you suffered a loss as a result of negligence on the part of the garage then you can sue, the right to sue for negligence cannot be surrendered under contract law.
I don't think that the arguments being advanced by the Internet legal experts are the right ones for craigslist to use. They are the ones that those lawyers would like craigslist to use but that does not make them the ones most likely to win this particular case.
There is plenty of case law that has upheld the constitutionality of anti-discrimination laws such as the fair housing act. Congress did not intend to give online companies a pass on those acts and intentionally facilitate discrimination.
If craigslist did win that way it would be a shortlived victory. Congress would clarify its intentions soon enough.
The best defense for craigslist is to do what they are doing and saying that they have taken every reasonable precaution to ensure that discriminatory ads are not published and that these precautions are effective.
Saying 'not our problem' is the worst thing they could do. Courts do not like people telling them that the law does not apply to them.
Re:That explains it... (Score:3, Insightful)
Freedom of Association (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:it's not a *newspaper* (Score:3, Insightful)
this could come back to bite blogs right in the ass, because blogs are looking for credibility as news publishers. many contain summaries and links of other blogs
Well, assuming the 1996 law truly does cover online service providers, why would it cover blog authors? A blog clearly IS a publication, and obviously that's it's intent. Why would you think a blog author is an online service provider?
Re:This is utter stupidity. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Freedom of Association (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Housing Discrimination = better than alternativ (Score:5, Insightful)
People need to wrap their heads around the idea that freedom includes the freedom to be a jackass. Some people have offensive views. They should be allowed to express them; others should be allowed to refute them. And they should be allowed to do with their own private property as they please; no one has an inherent right to live with me, and I'm only going to enter into an agreement to share my home with someone I find agreeable - I don't need to justify my definition of "agreeable" to anyone but myself. And if I'm looking to rent out a home, I should be able to rent it out to whomever I please. If I want to artificially cut out a segment of potential renters, thereby reducing the marketability of my place and possibly its dollar value, so be it. I'm a jackass for it, but again, no one had a right to that property, and no one had an opportunitiy to use it until I chose to put it on the market anyway.
Re:The Actual postings... (Score:2, Insightful)
It would be like holding the owner of a stadium responsible when someone in the crow yells something that could be considered ofensive.
Hmmmm (Score:3, Insightful)
In the U.S. thought, you have a myriad of laws and regulations that restrict what people can do, where, etc. The idea is to have fair trade, not free trade.
Seems backwards doesn't it? A communist country has less regulations, while a democratic country that prides itself on capitalism isn't really true capitalism.
That sucks. I'd want to know. (Score:4, Insightful)
What if it was something invisible, like religeon or sexual behavior? I might actually sign a lease with a landlord who will hate me as soon as he discovers that I'm not the sort of person he expected!
Think of all the ways a landlord can screw you over. Now imagine he totally hates you. Wouldn't you rather have had some warning? Wouldn't you rather have rented somewhere else?
Making discrimination illegal doesn't make it go away. It's still there, without any warning signs.
Re:Hmmmm (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Housing Discrimination = better than alternativ (Score:2, Insightful)
Merely a list of 'exceptions' to the original idea ; Wordsmith raises some valid points and certainly has a right to express them.
1. If you rent, you don't really get to dictate your roommate-hiring policy, 100%. Not really. You sublease without a contract, you get prosecuted. People may not like the "crazy" equality laws of sub-leasing to others, but they Will abide by them so long as they are renting, etc. from someone else. Obviously - we hope - 99% of people aren't going to have a "problem" renting to someone else if they absolutely need to. But, none the less.
2. How nice we live in a world where everyone, regardless of gender, race, religion etc. has such disposable income as to be able to afford any property, period. "thank goodness people other than white, straight males aren't discriminated against everywhere else in society!" Let us deny people a few dozen crucial resources and see how many inane "clubhouses" are formed. "Sorry, can't come into this treehouse until you get a job in a white man's world. Oh, and an education, haircut and sexual preference I approve of. Thanks". This is how too much of "organized" "religion" works, as well.
3. It's also amazing people have been able to "own" property ; some have been working for years to take it with them "when they go" (e.g. die). Shouldn't a bunch of plasma, then dinosaurs, cave people and Native people own the land then? After all they got there first. Shorthand : nobody really 'owns' anything. You're borrowing. Yeah, really. There is no spoon.
Anywho, just some additional "food for thought".
Re:The Actual postings... (Score:3, Insightful)
If a newspaper prints discriminatory ads they're liable as they e3xercise editorial control. Thet know what they're printing and (in theory) know what they're allowed to print. They're a publisher.
If I pin up an ad for a house to rent in a super market and then when somebody enquires via the telephone and I say I only want 19 yr old blond nymphomaniacs as tennants, can you sue the phone company? No. Why? As a common carrier Bell cannot control what is being said.
CL is a common carrier, not a publisher your honour. Move to dismiss.
Re:Housing Discrimination = better than alternativ (Score:2, Insightful)
I have to disagree. By your definition, act of discrimination doesn't violate other's freedom. But that's false.
Discrimination is nothing less than anti-freedom which imposes one's discrimination to hinder other's freedom. I am not talking about racial only issues here, but rather more general sense.
For instance, if your IQ does not fall under one's preferable level (and I'm not saying that to insult you or anyone or it's true), are you willing to accept that your freedom to learn or to have access to facility to learn can be compromised?
In my opinion, prejudice is everywhere and we are all guilty of it, however act of discrimination violates every sense of freedom there is and degrades fellow human beings' quality of life and pursuit of happiness. Now, what's so better about that?
Re:For real? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure this is true. I think the question of whether a given Court has jurisdiction, and whether a given law applies to a given situation, are both arguments that lawyers routinely make before a Court. I don't think Courts think these arguments are tantamount to saying the law doesn't apply to someone. They're just saying a particular law doesn't apply, or a particular Court doesn't have jurisdiction.
Indeed, I think questions of jurisdiction and applicability of the law are often raised first by good lawyers, because they can be decided by a judge in preliminary hearings -- the expense of a trial is not necessary, and if they win on these "procedural" questions, then they don't need to win on the merits.
In this case, for example, the Craigslist people would make this argument: Judge, even if a trier of fact (e.g. a jury) finds that each and every allegation made by the plaintiff is true, they can't prevail, because the law does not make what they say we have done illegal. If the judge buys this claim, boom, Craigslist wins immediately, and doesn't need to present a shred of evidence as to what they did or did not do, or intended to do. It's a very cheap victory.
So I would expect they will raise these arguments first. If they lose, then they will argue that they were not, in fact, discriminatory as defined by the law. I find it significant that the lawyers quoted think the suit is entirely without merit, a complete nonstarter. Given that the AP will be sympathetic to the plaintiffs, if they could have found a respected lawyer to say they stood a chance, they would have.
Incidentally, I don't agree the FHA is on sturdy legs here. The constitutionality of the FHA rests on a fairly creative interpretation of the Commerce Clause, which is why it does not -- and cannot -- apply to strictly private transactions, meaning those in which none of the parties is "in the regular business" of buying, selling, or renting property. If the Court finds that Craiglist is just a conduit here, just a way for one private party to communicate to another, like posting in a chat-room or standing up at a neighborhood barbecue and announcing you've a room for rent, then I don't see how the FHA can apply.
Re:The Actual postings... (Score:1, Insightful)
Yes, of course I do. Truth does not cease to be truth merely because you wish it to be falsehood, and all the bloviating and animadverting you wish to publicly display will not change that.
Now if you will excuse me, I am off to EAT THE FLESH OF GOD AND DRINK HIS BLOOD.
This is hate-filled, vitriolic flamebait, pure and simple. I know you were trying to be funny, but you failed. It's interesting how those secular humanists who sing the hue and cry of tolerance are always at the ready to mock Christians in the most nasty (and juvenile) way possible. The truth has a way of bringing out that type of behavior in those who have turned their backs upon it.
Not really (Score:1, Insightful)
You must be talking about the way we discuss any kind of celebrity. Angelina Jolie? She's hot, but now that she's knocked up, I wish she'd go away. Miss America? It proves that you can get intelligent, attractive women to put on a bathing suit to be judged on the basis of their breasts and how nice their ass looks. And then afterwards, we watch them continuously because we care about these women as people, and now just pieces of ass.
I guess what you're talking about *happens all the time in every aspect of life*. I'm judged at work by how well I perform my function. What is it so awful that a prostitute is judged by how well she has sex? Prostitution is honest work... why shouldn't it be graded like anything else in this world?
And anyway, the current "powerbooks" have been misnamed for 2-3 years now. Any G4 notebook in 2006 is called a "mediocre-at-best-book". Since apple has gradually eroded the value of the name "powerbook", it really is time to move on.
Re:The Actual postings... (Score:3, Insightful)
On the contrary, I was FORCED through Catholic teachings for more than 10 years as a child. I got one of those points of view rammed down my throat by Nuns who were known for their brutality (I copped my fair share) and Priests and Brothers who are known for their soddomy of little boys (thankfully I missed out on that one, but came close). My post is merely to point out how crazy it is that people put all this emphasis on what is written in some old books, when a lot of what is written in those old books is pretty much incredible fairytale esque stuff that cannot be backed up in the real World and flies in the face of real science.
Sorry but I think for myself and reject faith.
Re:Bullshit. (Score:3, Insightful)
Under your logic, the Supreme Court should never have ruled school segregation was unconstitutional because they predicted white-flight from urban schools. Imagine telling Chief Justice Warren, "Don't bother upholding the constitution because whatever you do, the white folks will still have their white-only (or white-dominated) schools. They'll just move to the suburbs."
Furthermore, the "you can't stop discrimination anyway" attitude is empirically wrong. Laws don't change attitudes overnight, but the law is a tremendously powerful normative force. Before Loving v. Virginia, anti-miscegenation laws were common and interracial relationships--to say nothing of marriages!--were taboo. Roughly 40 years later, most people (or at least, more people) don't bat an eye when they see interracial couples, and some people think it should be positively encouraged.
Fair housing laws are on the same line, in that by prohibiting many types of discrimination, they are an expression of social condemnation of those types of discrimination. By increasing the costs of discrimination, they further make rational actors engage in it less. And since discrimination is founded upon ignorance and fear of the unknown, forcing different races, religions, etc. to cohabit is a powerful way to reduce or eliminate discrimination in the long run.
In response to your objection that some people feel more comfortable living with others of similar background, the Fair Housing Act generally exempts single-family residences and dwellings intended for four or fewer families, if the owner resides in that dwelling. 42 U.S.C 3603(b).
Legalize discrimination now! (Score:3, Insightful)
It should be perfectly legal to murder, rape and rob, because passing laws isn't going to make those things disappear. In fact, people will always be prejudiced, so let's legalize full-scale racial discrimination in housing, hiring, and education. People are always going to do evil things... so why should we bother stopping them?
It may still be there. But making it illegal means that people have to take care not to get caught. It means that they know society disapproves of their actions. It means that most landlords will follow the law, and of those that don't, some will get caught.
Yes, discrimination will always be there... but certain kinds of discrimination are illegal because they are incompatible with a free and just society. If you are willing to disregard that simple fact because it might inconvenience you in some minor way, maybe you should ask yourself whether a free and just society is the kind of society you want to live in.
Re:The Actual postings... (Score:2, Insightful)
You say that like it's a bad thing.
In the short view, these cartoons have brought to light a very important fact (which various media outlets are scrabbling to bury again). The middle east and other affected areas are by and large still culturally and socially backward. 17th/18th century backward. Which isn't to say other countries and cultures have all the answers, but we don't burn or bomb their embassies every time they print mockeries of (for example) the vatican hierarchy, Jesus or the beard in the sky modern christian god. Which they do. Non-stop. It's surprising to find a cartoon (in those areas which actually allow pictures) or editorial in any of the media there that isn't scathing, mocking and considerably more offensive (and deliberately so) to all that the western religious fanatics hold dear.
In the long view, there are two viewpoints. Correct and incorrect. Otherwise known as religious and non-religious.
I have very few genocidal wishes, but the day the atheists and deists finally eradicate each other completely in a 3 way war and leave those of us with working intellects in peace will be a very very good one. I just hope they can be reasonably professional about it and take their propagandistic "holy" books with them.
Re:The Actual postings... (Score:3, Insightful)
Prodidy was deemed not to be a common carrier - fair enough, private carrier - because it employed a staff of editors that would monitor content and delete it where it felt appropriate.
Compuserve did not do this and was afforded private carrier status.
CL does not monitor or remove posts, rather the user comminity does. Cl merely provides the infrastructure for this to be possible.
This makes it much more aligned to our tradition definition of private carrier than a publisher.
http://www.mttlr.org/volthree/frieden_art.html [mttlr.org]
In Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co., a New York court held that the Prodigy commercial on-line information services company rendered itself liable for defamatory statements carried over one of its electronic bulletin boards, because it actively assumed the task of monitoring the messages and held itself out as exercising editorial control:
In Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe, Inc., a court gladly exempted an on-line information services provider from liability by choosing a "hands-off" approach to content:
Move to dismiss.
Re:Legalize discrimination now! (Score:3, Insightful)
Like hyperbole much?
People are always going to do evil things... so why should we bother stopping them?
Except, stopping advertisements expressing such prejudice doesn't stop the prejudice itself. It just prevents people looking for a place to live/work from having any sort of warning that they will waste their time by applying.
maybe you should ask yourself whether a free and just society is the kind of society you want to live in.
Ah, you apparently use "free and just" in the neocon sense... What about a right to free speech? Free association?
I have the right to refuse to sell/rent/employ/associate with you for absolutely no reason, simply because I might not "like" you. But that becomes illegal the moment I admit my dislike derives from you following the Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?
No. That doesn't stop prejudice. It stops speech, it stops people expressing their opinions. "So maybe you should ask yourself whether a free and just society is the kind of society you want to live in."
the trouble is that restricting speech isn't legal (Score:3, Insightful)
-russ
Re:The Actual postings... (Score:3, Insightful)