Craigslist cleared on discrimination claims

Craigslist.org can't be held liable for discriminatory ads posted on its site, according to a court ruling released Friday.

A group of Chicago lawyers had sued the online classifieds site over real-estate ads that stated discriminatory preferences such as "no minorities" or "no children." The group, the Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, argued that such ads are prohibited under the Fair Housing Act and that Craigslist should be held liable for allowing them to be posted on its Web site. Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed, likening Craigslist to courier services such as FedEx or UPS, which do not read or screen the messages they deliver. Easterbrook said it would be expensive and problematic for Craigslist to filter messages before they were posted.

The ruling (PDF) is good news for the many Web sites that host public forums, giving them further legal protections against liability claims based on content posted by their users, but is an obvious setback for proponents of fair housing online and off.

[jbuberel]

Correct download link for PDF Opinion

Is:

http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=07-1101_021.pdf

[jenguevin]

Thanks!

Thanks for pointing that out. I've corrected the link to the PDF.

Jennifer Guevin
Associate Editor
CNET News.com

[Sknygrydg07]

The last domain of free speech

I for one am pleased with the judges ruling and comments regarding the responsibility of Craig's List in reference to the postings provided by it's users. This is a perfect example of people taking attacking larger more established companies for a perceived maleficence because of the idea of 'deeper pockets' when the REAL perpetrators of discrimination are the writers of the postings, who would provide a much lower return if they were to be found liable.

[eppb12]

Common sense prevails!

In this time of absurd rulings and laws flipping common sense the bird, it's good to see common sense coming out on top for once.

[cwclifford]

Duh

Hard to believe we're still having these legal debates about the messenger being liable.

[Brentbb0]

Lets compromise

Although I don't think CL should be held liable and pay damages, I do think that we should not allow people to discriminate, or break certain other laws outright on line.

I don't think it would be that difficult or expensive to prohibit certain phrases like "whites only," in the context of a housing ad, say. Of course, this will take some doing, but we should at least try and see what can be done. Its crazy to let certain laws go, just because they may take some thinking to implement.

Or, should we allow organs and babies to be sold on eBay, too? And hard drugs? And helpful service offerings to break people's legs, maybe?

The filtering won't be perfect, but it can be fine tuned over time, and just like everything else in life, the effort just needs to be tempered and balanced.

[SeizeCTRL]

No Kids!

I for one see nothing wrong with the NO KIDS one. Parents just let kids do whatever they want to now-a-days, and there are plenty of people who do not want to be around unruly screaming babies and children who run a muck without parental supervision.

I would love to see a lot of restaurants take the old smoking / non-smoking approach to kids. It would be nice to go to Chili's, TGIF, Applebees etc. and not have to listen to a bunch of crying babies. That's what I would expect from fast food places with playgrounds...

[sanenazok]

New post: no lawyers allowed

The discrimination attorneys are important, but c'mon how tech-ignorant can you be to sue Craigslist, an unmoderated forum!

[road-rage]

difference between compromise and appeasement

let's not try to solve a problem we don't have.

presumably, the boneheads who post illegal roommate ads on Craigslist also post some type of contact info. so its pretty easy to track down the real lawbreakers.

what you propose would automatically censor my mom's meringue recipe ("the egg whites only rise after about ten minutes of vigorous beating") and laundry detergent jingles ("whites only get whiter with Blue Bottom (R) on'em").

what you propose is (1) a prior restraint on free speech, generally considered to be a leading indicator of tyranny,
(2) a costly burden on business -- generally considered to be a leading indicator of GDP-snuffing socialism, and
(3) a pain in the neck for website developers, which is just plain mean. don't website developers have enough to do without having to develop code to prevent offensive meringue recipes?

in new england (a very liberal neck of the woods) we like to say "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." which is not particularly grammatical for the home of four of the seven ivy leagues but go figure.

[maverick_nick]

Report as offensive

When it comes to user generated content the host can't be entirely responsible for the content. However, there are measures that can be taken to aide in mitigating the situation, such as the "Report as Offensive" button.