Once Again, Craigslist Isn't Liable For Discriminatory Posts
from the can't-sue-the-messenger dept
A little over two years ago, a civil rights group sued Craigslist, blaming the company for the fact that some of its users were posting discriminatory housing/roommate offers -- which could violate the Fair Housing Act of 1968. However, as plenty of people noted at the time, section 230 of the CDA protects Craigslist as a service provider, not a publisher, meaning that Craigslist isn't the party to sue here. The group could certainly go after the original posters for violating the law, but Craigslist is just the service provider and has no say in the content. That seemed obvious right from the beginning, but the civil rights group pushed forward and lost its case. The judge explained all of this to the lawyers... who filed an appeal anyway. The appeals court has now ruled as well, and (no surprise here) affirmed the original ruling, saying that Craigslist is a service provider, not a publisher, and therefore is not liable for discriminatory posts. As Eric Goldman points out, the ruling (again) makes this quite clear:"Using the remarkably candid postings on craigslist, the Lawyers' Committee can identify many targets to investigate. It can dispatch testers and collect damages from any landlord or owner who engages in discrimination....It can assemble a list of names to send to the Attorney General for prosecution. But given §230(c)(1) it cannot sue the messenger just because the message reveals a third party's plan to engage in unlawful discrimination."What will be interesting, however, is to see what happens now in a very similar lawsuit involving Roommates.com that is currently being reviewed in a different Circuit. Hopefully the court there comes to a similar conclusion and we stop getting these types of incorrectly targeted lawsuits.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: discrimination, housing, safe harbor, section 230, service provider
Companies: craigslist
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Is it truly incorrect?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is it truly incorrect?
Do you think the average person (who posts a housing/roommate opportunity) on Craigslist knows these laws? Do they need to hire an attorney before posting an ad? Seriously now. That's just what we need- more employed attorneys.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is it truly incorrect?
An average person is expected to know civics and commonsense. It is not a rocket science to __know__ that racism is not ok and normal people are not racists.
Oh, and talking about civics, US laws mandate that a foreigner must know civics in US before they can be a citizen, but there is no way to mandate the same knowledge for the rednecks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is it truly incorrect?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is it truly incorrect?
I want to know how you think IT is thumbing its nose at ethics? Clearly you do not understand why they are not responsible and should not be held responsible. There is no way imaginable to police and read every post or watch every video on YouTube that is uploaded. If it was that easy the MPAA and RIAA would not be sending take down notices every 5 seconds. I believe there are good people in IT and most have and follow ethics as people in most professions do. If you can demonstrate where a majority, as you imply, are not acting ethically I would be willing to listen. (What's that? Silence?) Saying IT is not ethical because you think they should perform the impossible does not make it unethical.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is it truly incorrect?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is it truly incorrect?
If you actually READ for once in your life you'd notice TechDirt made that distinction in passing. Even if you didn't know the law before hand, if you can comprehend English it is more than clear that publishers can be held liable for that but service providers can not.
But again, you are either a) incredibly stupid or b) a troll.
Now shoo. No one has missed you so why come back and spout nonsense?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is it truly incorrect?
If the New York Times provides a publishing service for ads by third parties, then what is it? If nytimes.com has popup ads for whites-only jobs, is it a "publisher" or a "service provider"? If craigslist has buttons for "publish this ad", can it still call itself a "service provider"?
If Techdirt wants to argue that the world of publishing and the net have become one, then it cannot have it both ways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Is it truly incorrect?
Anyway, if common sense says that something looks obviously wrong and done deliberately to dodge the legal system, there is a good chance that the legal system will catch them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Is it truly incorrect?
If you don't like the content of Craigslist, don't use their service, or the services of their advertisers. Tell them so.
If there are enough knee-jerk reactionary puds like yourself, maybe it would make a difference.
Also, even if it were blatantly illegal in the U.S., Craiglist would only need to move their servers and business headquarters to a friendlier country. It would take about a week, and there are plenty of countries that want the tax revenue.
The U.S. is moralizing itself out of the economic benefits of the Internet, because we think we control it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is it truly incorrect?
You sir should think before you post...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
big difference there. with the ny times they have editorial control. they approve any ad. not so with craigslist. that should be obvious to anyone. blaming craigslist is like blaming the maker of a cork bulletin board for a note someone posts on it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Cork industry beware!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not the job of IT
They are liable to provide access and security. It is NOT the job of the geek to judge whether something should or should not be posted.
Sit down for this one: IT and Service providers are a series of tubes.
They are the conduit that data, memes, and life pass through, they are not the deciding factor on what that content is.
The former VP was close to right. He just named the wrong subject in his statement. The internet is an organism consisting of human interaction, NO MATTER HOW DISGUSTING.
If it is directly harmful to someone (including children)that is not the job of IT or any site unless they are directly influencing the content.
We should assist in protecting...but we are not the liable for what comes and goes.
tl;dr:
No company should have any right to dictate what content, that they do not own, that is posted using their services. Nor should they be liable for the content that a 3rd party posts. They should however assist in legal protection of content.
Tony
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not the job of IT
Librarians have dealt with this for over 100 years. We are often targeted by those "looking" for issues, substantive or otherwise.
Considering that Craigslist is really just an electronic bulletin board, providing users with the means to immediately report discriminatory comments, I don't know why these complainants didn't just "out" these freaks on Craigslist, or other online entities.
On another note, Free Speech moves in all directions, but the NY Times critique is uninformed. The NY Times has "editors" and "qualified" reporters to vet the "information" to be published. Craigslist does not represent itself as comparable to a newspaper in any way.
Why the quotation marks? Librarianship entails a Master's degree that is intellectually and physically grueling. The MLIS/MLS degree is terminal, and we KNOW information. Subsequently, I have earned the right to put quotes on these terms.
The folks who provide you news do NOT have to possess Journalism degrees. Hence, unless they reveal their credentials and resources, I'm not buyin' it.
Maybe the hysteria surrounding this has to do with a lack of intellectual/technical reference points. Go to a library, and work with a librarian, before you go-off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
in any houseing renting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
he did it wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Get a clue dorpus.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Get a clue dorpus.
If it is "not the job of the service provider", why does craigslist take it upon itself to remove posts it doesn't like?
Keep in mind that you are posting on a forum that is run by homosexuals, so you may not want to be too eager to bash minorities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Get a clue dorpus.
Because it can. It's solely at their discretion, and they don't have any legal responsibility to censor posts, unless the post is actually illegal. You're trying to argue for moral responsibility, but that isn't the law (nor should it be). Morality is too much of a grey area to attempt to legislate.
I'm still trying to understand why dorpus opposes freedom of speech so much... Maybe it's because he's constantly mocked for making ridiculous, unfounded statements?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NYT maintains full editorial control, nothing gets put in their paper without their so, absolutely nothing. Even if it 100% legal or not
Even though something like craiglist looks similar on the surface to the NYT it is actually more akin to a telephone company and suing them is like suing AT&T because someone used the telephone to arrange (or even commit) a crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But as Craigslist says, it has the right to revoke posts it doesn't like. So this is comparable to the NYT that maintains 100% editorial control, and thus it is a publisher with an editorial board. I have not heard of phone companies that drop calls based on offensive topics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
To give your example: the NYT is a publisher who is responsible for editing content and preventing illegal and/or inflammatory messages from appearing in its classified - similar to the responsibility it has over news, sports and a book publisher would have over its content.
Because there's no editorial oversight at Craigslist, it doesn't work like that. It's more like a physical bulletin board - anyone can come and post a message and someone else will take down unsuitable content, but you don't have to gain permission for each message. If you did, the service could not work (the overheads involved in hiring relevant people would kill it), and the same can be said of any such service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
publisher vs. provider
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Words huuurt!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Publishers v. Providers
I realize the argument that craigslist.org wouldn't exist, let alone stand to make any money if it weren't from the fact that people can advertise on it, but there really is a huge distinction between the two on this point alone.
Also, the laws behind housing discrimination are rather convoluted; for instance, it is perfectly legal for some people to discriminate when they are selecting their tenants, and to discriminate as blatantly as they want. However, this privilege is reserved to owners of fewer than three rental properties (or something along those lines). The law was designed to prevent people who earn their living, based upon housing, from illegally discriminating. In fact, you lose your right to discriminate if you use any kind of advertising, as that goes to show a commercial quality in your renting.
By the way, I am not an attorney, so don't take any of this as legal advice (probably not a good idea to take legal advice from an anonymous post on a blog anyway), but you can certainly look up the Fair Housing Act yourself - 42 U.S.C. 3601.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Publishers v. Providers
In the eyes of the law, they are both for-profit organizations. The problem, as I said before, will be an agency problem where the publishers work as agents to the advertisers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Housing Act 1968
Now suppose you are a young father with two small children, and your wife is a stay-at-home mom.
Now suppose you get three applicants for the room. The first, a white male, strikes you as a loud, obnoxius, party animal with low morals. You envision loud music and lots of drinking and fornication happening on your property. The second applicant, a single, middled-aged man who works as a prison guard, strikes you as a skeaze-ball pedophile type. The third is a young student from India who mentions he is on a full scholarship in the bio-chemistry department. He is well-dressed, soft-spoken, and seems like a good person.
It's a no brainer. You use your God-given right to discriminate and choose which tenant you would want to be near your wife and kids. Why in the world should the government be able to dictate to you how to choose? According to the Tenth Amendment, it shouldn't. And stating your preferfences in a written ad is no crime.
Now, if you are a racist and for some reason you have an irrational hatred for people from India, you might pass on all three applicants and simply choose to lose the money you could have earned from the rent. That is your choice. The government has no right to tell you otherwise. And stating in your written ad that people from India will not be allowed is not unconstitutional. It is honest, and will save everyone invovled time and energy.
In many cases, renters would rather lose money than have people they consider to be unsavory living on their private property. Whether or not those choices are motivated by irrational racism, by logic, by religion, by statistical analysis, or whatever, it doesn't matter. It's not the government's job to control our consciences or our God-given right to choose.
The so-called "Fair" Housing Act of 1968 was unconstitutional and it needs to be struck down. At it's core, it has nothing to do with racism. It has everthing to do with big government meddling.
Unfortunately, TechDirt has reinforced the percieved legitimacy of unconstitutional legislation. A better title and focus for the article might have been the following:
"Once Again, Legislators and Laywers Ignore Freedom, Ignore the Constitution, and Bicker about Petty Sub-arguments."
Most people, myself included, abhor racism and would like to see it eradicated from human nature. But government meddling and misguided laws will not change human nature. Such laws are impossible to enforce, and they generate a lot of fraud, waste, and abuse in an attempt to do so.
An owner's freedom to discrminate at private resturants and private lodgings is a basic element of property rights.
As consumers, we have the right to choose (discriminate between) which establishments we will patronize. As private property owners, we likewise have the right to choose (discriminate between) which consumers we will choose to serve. When that right is taken away from us, the control of our private property is being leveraged away from us by the government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Housing Act 1968
Now suppose you get three applicants for the room. The first, a white male, strikes you as a loud, obnoxius, party animal with low morals. You envision loud music and lots of drinking and fornication happening on your property. The second applicant, a single, middled-aged man who works as a prison guard, strikes you as a skeaze-ball pedophile type. The third is a young student from India who mentions he is on a full scholarship in the bio-chemistry department. He is well-dressed, soft-spoken, and seems like a good person.
It's a no brainer. You use your God-given right to discriminate and choose which tenant you would want to be near your wife and kids. Why in the world should the government be able to dictate to you how to choose? According to the Tenth Amendment, it shouldn't. And stating your preferfences in a written ad is no crime.
Actually, Joe, that action would not violate the Fair Housing Act, which only bans discrimination based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status and disability.
You can discriminate based on other factors, which makes sense in each of the examples you gave above. So, your example does not show how the law is problematic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Housing Act 1968
You apparently did not read the rest of my post. I clearly addressed the race issue.
Race, gender, religion, etc....employing any of these reasons to discriminate is constitutional with regard to private property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Housing Act 1968
You apparently did not read the rest of my post. I clearly addressed the race issue.
Race, gender, religion, etc....employing any of these reasons to discriminate is constitutional with regard to private property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Housing Act 1968
You apparently did not read the rest of my post. I clearly addressed the race issue.
Race, gender, religion, etc....employing any of these reasons to discriminate is constitutional with regard to private property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Housing Act 1968
You apparently did not read the rest of my post. I clearly addressed the race issue.
Race, gender, religion, etc....employing any of these reasons to discriminate is constitutional with regard to private property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Housing Act 1968
Actually, if you read the Fair Housing act, it allows a person to discriminate for any reason, even irrational hatred of a particular race, if that person is living in the same house, and they are not also renting more than 2 other properties (I think it's two others, it may be three others).
Check out the exceptions under 42 USC §3603 (b). So, I agree with Mike that your example would not be illegal under the FHA, although not with his particular reasons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what is the issue???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Move On...
Someone choosing a roommate should have complete control over who they want living with them. You're actually sharing your life with that person to a degree. I certainly don't want to live with someone that doesn't want me there (race, sex, religion, etc.) and is forced to by the threat of a lawsuit, it only makes the situation worse or take the time to go through an interview process when the decision is already made. If I want a female that looks like a model living with me (may be a tough sale), that's my choice and their choice to accept. Things are getting so freakin' P.C. that the next thing you know someone will be sued for being asked out by someone of another race and saying no.
As for the housing piece... Everyone should be judged based on the same guidelines no matter race, sex, religion, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Political Correctness BS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Political Correctness BS
The intention of civil rights groups on issues like this is to remove overt discrimination and therefore remove the perception that it's OK to discriminate. If you really don't want a particular type of person living with you, you can come up with other reasons not to rent without discriminating on race or gender. This kind of PC law is absolutely fine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Political Correctness BS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Political Correctness BS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Right there is a racist bigot, I am what you would consider a "redneck" and I have a college degree, a wife and 3 kids, plus a home (not a trailer). Screw you and your remark.
Hehehe just playing, but I really am a redneck, just to prove a point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Suing the Right People
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pluck-em
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sue Craigslist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Speaking of racists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What some of you dont realize is...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i.e. sure craigs list and whatnot are "protected", but can they be subpoenaed for the IP addresses of the posters? especially if the comments made by said poster are defamatory or illegal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CRAIGSLIST.ORG SUCKS! || Providing a Safe Haven For Cyber-Bullies and Criminals
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Problem with craigslist is
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is it truly incorrect?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
craigslist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]