| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
dbee
Joined: 29 Dec 2004
Location: korea
|
 Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 4:37 pm Post subject: Judge rules that 'Whites only' advertising it OK .... |
 |
|
Saw an article on arstechnica today and thought it might have a lot of relevance with regards to Dave's boards ...
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061120-8257.html
| Quote: |
A federal judge in U.S. District Court in Chicago has ruled that Craigslist is not responsible for openly discriminatory housing ads placed on its site by users. In the case of Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law Inc. v. Craigslist Inc., No. 06C-0657 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Amy St. Eve upheld Craigslist's argument that it is not a "publisher" of housing ads, but merely a provider of online "interactive services," and therefore is not liable for the content of users' posts under the 1996 Communications Decency Act.
The plaintiff in the case, a Chicago-based civil rights group called Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, filed suit against Craigslist back in February. The suit alleged that posts made to Craigslist's housing board between the months of July and October, 2005 were openly discriminatory and thus were illegal under the 1968 Fair Housing Act. The posts at issue described very specifically who the posters did and did not want as tenants, with some posts explicitly excluding certain racial groups and others implicitly excluding everyone but a specific type of desired applicant.
The case has been closely watched by the tech industry and by civil liberties advocates. Back in June, a number of online companies, including Amazon, Google, and Yahoo, filed an amicus brief with the court on Craigslist's behalf. The EFF and eBay also supported Craigslist in the lawsuit. All of these parties were hoping for a solid legal precedent granting them blanket immunity from all liabilities resulting from the contents of users' posts.
The judge didn't quite grant the hoped-for latitude, ruling instead that Craigslist is only immune in its capacity as a publisher of third-party content. This implies that there may be some other, non-publisher capacity in which Craigslist could conceivably be found liable for the contents of users' posts.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Demophobe
Joined: 17 May 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 5:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Relevant, but perhaps in the General Discussion forum! 
My computer is black.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
corroonb
Joined: 04 Aug 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 5:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I believe you're thinking of the Current Events forum. They love this sort of thing over there. You'd have a 100 page thread in no time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Demonicat
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Location: Suwon
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 7:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hmm, that is indeed a surprising article. Accordingly, that implies that newspapers may also run discrimnatory ads, as well as articles. For while the context was about advertisments, the precent was set at zero liabillity for the provider. Personally, I am torn on many levels:
1) Discrimnation is bad.
2) Freedom of speech is good.
3) It is realloy *beep*- ing annoying to show up to an interview, look around at the other applicants, and have the sesame street song in your head "One of these things is not like the other" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 7:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Craigslist allows people to post their own ads.
The poster could and most certainly should be prosecuted.
This challenge wasn't brought by an offended party is was brought by a realtor's group.
cbc |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Demonicat
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Location: Suwon
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 7:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Its interesting in a way though, that we promise absolute free speech, and we are quite proud of it...as long as it is not discrimanatory towards minorities, illegal immigrants, women, or the disabled. further, although we have several work related laws guaranteeing non-discrimantory workplaces, the matter of public space (including virtual), was firmly settled by the Heart Of Atlanta vs. the United States, which promised non-discrimatory practice in the public arena. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dbee
Joined: 29 Dec 2004
Location: korea
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 9:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Hmm, that is indeed a surprising article. Accordingly, that implies that newspapers may also run discrimnatory ads, as well as articles. For while the context was about advertisments, the percent was set at zero liabillity for the provider.
|
... errr no. The article doesn't imply that at all. Quite the opposite in fact, it states that while newspapers are the publishers of ads - and therefore are responsible for their contents. Websites aren't actual publishers of ads, they merely provide the medium by which ads are posted. It has absolutely nothing to do with newspaper articles whatsoever.
Your granny is allowed to rent her back room to whomever she pleases. If she doesn't want black, Hispanics, gays, whites or males - then that's up to her. And her rights in this regard are protected by the law.
This ruling states that in the case of say, Craigslist. Your granny's rights are extended to the site. Craigslist isn't responsible for what kind of tenant your gran is looking for, it's just a medium by which your gran advertises. A commercial entity on the other hand (eg. Microsoft), still has a legal responsibility in a different regard, as to how it advertises on Craigslist. And so could still be sued for posting a 'whites only' ad.
This differs to a newspaper, as a newspaper is responsible because a newspaper is the 'publisher' of your gran's ad. It must take responsibility for what it publishes.
I think it's a good ruling, and that the net - as a many-to-many network should be afforded greater leeway in regards to what is allowed to be posted.
With regards to Dave's though, Dave's servers are in the US, so it absolves him from responsibility when people post job ads for specific races, sexes, religions etc... And since Korean law doesn't prohibit such advertising afaik, it's legal on both sides of the world. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Demonicat
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Location: Suwon
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 10:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So where does the separation lay? Is it in the fact that a newspaper is for-profit typically, whereas a website is typically free? That can't be it, as most websites require pay and there are many free newspapers. Is it yet another seperation of print and plastic? Where is the seperation?
Yes, a newspaper does publish the information, meaning that they must check it themselves, but do websites not have that capabillity. Mind you, I myself find it an excellent ruling, as 10/10 I will always support all freedom of speech that does not endanger public health, I just wish to know where the difference is between a wanted ad online and a wanted ad print is to be found. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tiger Beer
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 1:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Newspapers go through editing. and are commerical in nature. Even free newspapers still run ads for $.
I think it would almost be impossible for a website like craigslist to be sued and held responsible for every single thing every person posts.. and still be managed/run effectively as a website. They'd have to actually charge people to post.. then have to hire someone to read what they post before it shows up online.. which would basically defeat the purpose and be the death of the website.
The only way to really enforce it would be to go after the little old granny who wants a white woman roommate in her 2 bedroom apartment.. and sue the granny pants off her. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dulouz
Joined: 04 Feb 2003
Location: Uranus
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 5:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The decison says "Blacks Only" is OK as well. Is that bad also or is just "Whites Only" bad? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChopChaeJoe
Joined: 05 Mar 2006
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 8:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Discrimination is housing is illegal. the ruling narrows the scope of who is in the wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
