Forum Moderators: phranque
A Chicago fair housing group has sued groundbreaking Web site Craigslist for allegedly publishing discriminatory advertisements, a case that could test the legal liabilities of online ad venues.The suit is part of an emerging attempt by housing watchdogs nationally to hold online classified sites to the same strict standards as the publishers of print classifieds, such as newspapers.
Besdies other issues, I have this academic question... does it matter that craigslist isn't paid for the ads?
In the UK, it is common practice to put cards up in local shops to advertise various local services, etc. Surely no one believes a shop could be sued for what an anonymous individual places on a free noticeboard.
Having said that, we are entering a new era and the law is playing catchup. A principle needs to be established whereby test cases are argued using public funds and without threat of financial penalty.
Kaled.
Craigslist does charge employers for listings, btw.
It is ok for the kkk, nazis, skinheads, the black panthers and al quieda to have websites where they espouse their views, but Craiglist gets sued if a POSTER says in an advert for someone to come live in his house, I don't want a non-white, male roomate?
Also this advert is for a ROOMMATE, it is not posted by a landlord, does this person not have a right to choose who he wants to live with? I admit that mentioning out loud his exclusions was a bit foolish but does his lack of common sense make Craiglist liable?
If sharing ads are being cited, I would not be surprised if a fine were imposed for wasting court time.
Kaled.
It's not *quite* the same thing, but I'm just waiting for someone to sue because a website posted a job announcement for a position in Saudi Arabia that specifies "Male Only" or a job announcement in South Korea that specifies, "Must be under 35 years of age." (Both of these are against the US "equal employment opportunity" laws which don't, of course, apply anywhere other than the US.)
Oh, and I can't resist commenting on this:
In the UK, it is common practice to put cards up in local shops to advertise various local services, etc. Surely no one believes a shop could be sued for what an anonymous individual places on a free noticeboard.
Maybe no one in the UK believes that, but I think in the US, lawsuits are 97% of our gross domestic product. I'd actually be surprised if no one's ever sued a shop for an anonymous notice placed on its noticeboard here in the US.
Whether they won or not is almost beside the point. :-)
JK
The closest attribution for responsibility seems to be this paragraph:
Laurie Wardell, a spokeswoman for the Chicago Lawyers' Committee, said landlords realize that the Internet has a lower bar for housing ads. "You just shift to the Internet if you want to discriminate," she said.
Emphasis mine.
Again, I don't doubt that both landlords and tenants have posted inflammatory requirements. But one cannot assume that the quoted statements were solely made by those looking for compatible roommates.
Yeah. Soon you will have to date anyone that asks you out, or else you will face Civil Rights violation lawsuits.
;)
Lawyers and governments a so scrambling to get some control over WWW that something seems to be legally tested evey other week..
Will it mean that people will host sites completely off US soil? could it mean that the US will start to censor all incoming connections?
The point seems petty but as we go on where is it going to end up?
and the real questions is: who prints it, Craigslist that provides a forum to do so, or John who places the discriminatory ad? I say Craigslist is innocent, just as one can't hold Verizon accountable because one uses their phone lines to arrange for a murder.
and the real questions is: who prints it, Craigslist that provides a forum to do so, or John who places the discriminatory ad? I say Craigslist is innocent, just as one can't hold Verizon accountable because one uses their phone lines to arrange for a murder.
I tend to agree with you, except that in the case of print media, both the newspaper and the advertiser are held liable for discriminatory speech. So should it be different for online vs. print, new media vs. old? I'm not so certain that I'm in favor of greater regulation of the web, but these issues do raise lots of questions, that's for sure...
