February 08, 2006

• Talk about an over-reaction. As the Craigslist dude said - offensive ads can be flagged. Besides any of the comments quoted would be a red flag to me if I was house-hunting. It would be good to know in advance that the person was a small-minded nong. What next? Dating sites being targetted for allowing people to list their preferences in a potential partner?
• I really want to know if my potential roommate is looking for a Godly Christian, because if so, we are not going to get along.
• Well, it is illegal in most places to discriminate on these bases. What isn't clear is if the list is being sued because of ads in the markets where they are illegal. That would make sense to me. Chicagoans suing because of a discriminatory house listing in texas doesn't.
• Well, as anti-discriomination laws go, that's one of the most fucking stupid things I've heard of. It's one (reasonable) thing to refuse to allow a non-resident landlord to discriminate against tenants. Telling me I can't choose who I do or don't live with based on something as fundamental as whether they have clashing political or religious beliefs is nuts.
• What about suing the people who submitted the ads themselves? They clearly voilated Craigslist's terms - right at the top of the page in which a person posts a housing ad, it says "Stating a discriminatory preference in a housing post is illegal, and prohibited on craigslist." Even if that was added after this lawsuit started, Craigslist has always been clear on their position regarding fair housing. This kind of thing irks me. I'm getting awfully tired of the steady decline of personal responsibility in this country.
• Overreaction. If it's renting out an empty apartment, then it's a problem. Filtering potential roommates, while possibly distasteful, (no fitb!) shouldn't be handled like this. Everytime I've responded to or advertised for a roommate, there's been an interview. Anyone wanting to discriminate would do so here at this stage without admitting to it.
• rodgerd, good point. I was thinking of this as a problem with people wanting to rent out apartments, not rooms.
• Yeah, but the bit I don't get is why is the website being sued? Why not, oh I dunno, something crazy like the people who submitted the ads?
• should preview: what those other guys said
• The law makes it illegal to publish a discriminatory housing ad. It's much easier to enforce that way. And you're still free to be discriminatory in your roommate search, you just can't do it in the published ad.
• I don't see anything regarding political discrimination in the article. And I don't know of any place where you can publish an ad stating that you don't want to rent property to people of a certain race or religion. Or employ them on that basis. This isn't anything new.
• When I last looked at renting laws in California or Massachusetts, if I recall correctly (and it was > 5 years ago, so be gentle), one could legally discriminate on the basis of religion and possibly gender when looking for a roommate or someone to share a house with. --Pat
• This kind of thing irks me. I'm getting awfully tired of the steady decline of personal responsibility in this country. I don't know what you're talking about there. Do you mean that the people being discriminated against are responsible for being discriminated against?
• I think that was in response to the idea of Craigslist being sued - not the individuals who posted the ads. Which was before rocket88's comment: The law makes it illegal to publish a discriminatory housing ad. It's much easier to enforce that way.
• And the real question is whether Craigslist or the person posting the ad is the "publisher".
• I'm not certain, but I think that most cases in recent years that involve "public access"-type postings on the internet (BBSes, eBay, Monkeyfilter) show that the proprietor of a website is only liable for the content in 2 cases: 1) Content is moderated before posting. This makes the person approving posts responsible for following the laws in approving the post. 2) After being properly notified, the proprietor either doesn't remove the offensive posting or otherwise refuses to cooperate with the appropriate authorities. I think this suit is really a law firm looking for some press (and succeeding, might I add) and a chilling effect on craigslist and similar unmoderated sites (where, if history is any lesson, they will spectacularly fail).
• I guess there's a third instance I didn't think of, and that's where through endorsement or inaction they encourage illegal postings on their site, which craigslist certainly does not do.
• >1) Content is moderated before posting. This makes the person approving posts responsible for following the laws in approving the post. And thats exactly what happens with CraigsList for Job Ads. Don't know about for housing. I've hired perhaps six or eight people through craigslist, and there is always an 'approval' process after placing the ad with them.
• I list apartments throught craigslist all the time. There is no moderation involved in posting an ad. The only thing you need is a valid e-mail address, to "finalize" the publication of the ad, so it actually appears on the site.
• In many periodicals' personal ads, you're not allowed to specify a race or nationality of person you're looking for. Advertisers get around this by saying things like "seeking Japanese-speaking female." Similarly, all you've got to do to in a housing ad is to say "Room for rent in Christian-friendly household." That more or less ensures that Christians will feel encouraged to apply, and anyone who doesn't want to live with fundies will run a mile-- say, to the nearest ad saying "LGBT-friendly."
• The distinction, Pallas Athena is that all printed ads are, practically by definition, moderated, and someone has to approve publication in advance, hence taking on some legal liabilities.
• Craigslist WORKS. It pisses me off that someone's trying to fuck it up.
• one could legally discriminate on the basis of religion and possibly gender Or having sleeping companions of the feline/canine persuasion
• Job Ads they charge for though. I think that might be the reason for the waiting period.
• "Non-women of color?"
• Non-women of color == black men.
• Earlier, I wrote that I recalled that certain kinds of discrimination were allowed in California. Here's the link to the CA Dept of Consumer Affairs which first outlines what's not OK, and then adds: Limited exceptions for single rooms and roommates If the owner of an owner-occupied, single-family home rents out a room in the home to a roomer or a boarder, and there are no other roomers or boarders living in the household, the owner is not subject to the restrictions listed under "Examples of unlawful discrimination". In other words, if you and your Amish family want to rent out a room in your own home, you can legally say "Amish only, and please bring thine own butterchurn" on Craigslist.
• There's one more exception -- if you're looking for a roommate. From the same page: A person in a single-family dwelling who advertises for a roommate may express a preference on the basis of gender, if living areas (such as the kitchen, living room, or bathroom) will be shared by the roommate So you can't request only Amish applicants, but you can say "women only ... and please bring thine own butterchurn."
• MonkeyFilter: Amish only, and please bring thine own butterchurn
• Lawsuits like this is why we can't have nice things.
• I don't know what you're talking about there. Do you mean that the people being discriminated against are responsible for being discriminated against? Thanks for clarifiying that for me, gomichild. Yes, it's in response to Craigslist getting sued, instead of the people who knowingly violated their (Craigslist's) terms and posted ads with illegal content. If it was illegal at all, which now is kind of uncertain.