Craigslist Fair Housing Act Suit Dismissed 162
tigersaw writes, "A federal judge in Chicago has dismissed the suit against Craigslist brought by the Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, which accused the site of violating the Fair Housing Act of 1968 by not actively filtering out housing advertisements that include discriminatory language. Craigslist cited their community-based flagging system as an already effective means of limiting such posts. However, the court held that the site was nonetheless protected by the 1996 Communications Decency Act (CDA), which shields Web forums from liability for ads and opinions posted by their users."
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Freedom of association is just not that popular (Score:4, Insightful)
But to address the main point of your post, yes, it is a good idea. Most bigots are functioning bigots anyway, meaning that they will happily take anyone's money for rent. They may even learn a degree of tolerance or even respect. Moreover, once you start allowing that kind of segregation, you end up with sections of town for the blacks, Jews and other minorities. This was the case as recently as the 1970s in some areas, but since that sort of thing has been regulated by Federal law, people are allowed to live anywhere they want. Do you really want to return to segregation?
Re:Freedom of association is just not that popular (Score:3, Insightful)
By the way, freedom of speech isn't about having the right to say whatever you want without facing consequences. It's the right to say what you want without being arrested. Is it authoritarian that you might get fired if you call your boss an asshole to his face? No, it's a matter of common sense and good manners. Same idea with speech on campus. And doesn't a university have the freedom to discontinue association with unrepentant bigots? And don't they have a mission to teach certain community values?
Re:Freedom of association is just not that popular (Score:5, Insightful)
And ironic that their namesake, Craig, is himself what people would describe as a "liberal" and is being targeted by the very people that he in other contexts would support. This is a man who would go to hell and back to avoid discriminating against others, and one who runs his business at unbelievably thin profit margins in order to pursue other goas with the service. And what is his thanks? He gets sued on grounds of discrimination, ignoring all the oppressed groups he's helped find housing. Brilliant!
"A conservative is a liberal who's tried to run a business."
Re:Freedom of association is just not that popular (Score:5, Insightful)
Or, put another way, "I vote that those whose views I find reprehensible be denied those civil rights that I believe appropriate, such as the right to use their property as they see fit or the right to engage in business."
Freedom also means having to put up with those you disagree with or dislike. I don't like racism either, but you combat that with education and encouragement of critical thinking, not with misguided laws that overstep the bounds of what the government is allowed to do. In the end, you're still going to end up with some people that are going to be prejudiced no matter what, and when you come across people like that it's best to just learn to deal with it.
Re:Freedom of association is just not that popular (Score:3, Insightful)
It's ironic how strikingly authoritarian some civil rights legislation can be. If bigots want to be bigoted then people have to accept that and if they disagree with it then they should not associate with them. Forcing them to change their views is itself a very bigoted approach.
Re:Freedom of association is just not that popular (Score:5, Insightful)
And he pays for society's help in the form of taxes.
In short, keep your bigoted acts private and you're fine. Air them in public and fuck you.
Tolerance is a two-way street. You're always free not to associate with those you disagree with. It's remarkable how so many of those who scream the loudest about "tolerance" are unwilling to actually practice it.
Re:Freedom of association is just not that popular (Score:1, Insightful)
These anti-discrimination laws don't really affect your "freedom of association" in any tangible way -- for example, they don't affect who you choose as a roommate -- or even landlords who live in a *different* unit -- as long as they own under a certain number of units. In these close-quarter circumstances, you can legally discriminate in any way you want.
Part of the basis for these laws is that every landlord accrues benefit to their property from the public till: the national defense, public utilities, the roadways. How about if you discriminate, you get disconnected from these benefits -- or you pay more?
The alternative to anti-discrimination laws -- in housing, or any other area -- is to have a balkanized, segregated America -- far worse than it is now. Do you really want to go back to that? Statistically speaking, a majority of
So, what about landlords who own massive high-rise apartments in a major city? You want to allow *them* to discriminate? F*** you. We've been there already.
And, no: "the free market" is not going to sort it out. The alternative to these anti-discrimination laws is a total lack of social cohesion, chaos, secession and possibly violence.
Re:Freedom of association is just not that popular (Score:4, Insightful)
But engaging in business activities is a highly regulable area. Polluters don't have a right to pollute that trumps environmental laws. Restaurants don't have a right to be unsanitary that trumps health laws. And businesses open to the public generally don't have a right to discriminate that trumps antidiscriminatory commercial regulations. They can still want to, and can still believe in it, they just can't actually do it.
Even setting aside the strong governmental policy in eliminating discrimination for its own sake as an evil in the world, discriminatory practices are economically inefficient and harm the economy. While you might argue that the market will eventually correct for this on its own (despite some evidence to the contrary), the government is hardly required to sit back and wait for the market; it can take an active role, and this is certainly one area in which it ought to. It might not be perfect, but it's resulted in things being a hell of a lot better than they were. I sure don't see you offering any better solutions given the panoply of measures (not just commercial regulation) that the government uses to discourage and/or eliminate discrimination in various fields.
Re:Terms of Use (Score:3, Insightful)
The fact that we live in a world that can construe that as racist makes me angry.
Re:There's always a way around the law. (Score:3, Insightful)
In my opinion, most everyone would be better off if they just accepted that rich people are going to find some way to get their kids into more exclusive schools, and instead focused on increasing school choice (rather than having the school district lock-in) so that this struggle doesn't have the collateral damage of the environment, transportation congestion, and difficulty buying a home.