gay or straight, roommates.com can't ask

[7960]

is this politics?

Straight or gay? U.S. court says Web site can't ask

Straight or gay? U.S. court says Web site can't ask | Reuters

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A roommate-finding site cannot require users to disclose their sexual orientation, a U.S. appeals court ruled on Thursday, in the latest skirmish over whether anti-discrimination rules apply to the Web.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said Roommates.com, which obliges users to list their sexual orientation, was different than Internet sites where people can volunteer or withhold personal information.

I think it's stupid that they *require* the information (why not make it an optional question to answer?) . But if someone has a problem with it then they don't have to use that website to find a roommate or a rental.

While I don't want anyone to get hurt, what's going to happen when a gay guy rents a room from a homophobe and gets beaten up the first time his boyfriend comes over?

[Scrum]

That's retarded. Why would you want to pair people up who may not get along?


I wonder if they ask if they smoke? Nobody seems to mind discriminating against them.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Scrum

That's retarded. Why would you want to pair people up who may not get along?


I wonder if they ask if they smoke? Nobody seems to mind discriminating against them.

same with religion, people want to live with people that they are compatible with

[A_C_E]

Seems outside the scope of the Court's jurisdiction to me, but at the same time, why not just make it an optional question?

[7960]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

same with religion, people want to live with people that they are compatible with

To inquire electronically about sexual orientation would not be different from asking people in person or by telephone if they were black or Jewish before conducting business, the panel said in an 8-3 ruling

can't ask about religion or race either

[7960]

Originally Posted by A_C_E

Seems outside the scope of the Court's jurisdiction to me, but at the same time, why not just make it an optional question?

the way I read the article it can't even be an optional question, but I may be wrong.

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by 7960

To inquire electronically about sexual orientation would not be different from asking people in person or by telephone if they were black or Jewish before conducting business, the panel said in an 8-3 ruling

can't ask about religion or race either

I think the conventional wisdom is that race, sexuality and to a lesser extent religion are not choices, therefore it should be unfair to discriminate against those traits.

Smoking is still considered a choice, but I think it's certainly arguable that smoking is less of a choice than religion.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by 7960

To inquire electronically about sexual orientation would not be different from asking people in person or by telephone if they were black or Jewish before conducting business, the panel said in an 8-3 ruling

can't ask about religion or race either

yea hopefully this is another 9th circuit decision that gets overturned

[lew]

Why did this ever go to court at all? A private website should be able to ask any question they want.

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by lew

Why did this ever go to court at all? A private website should be able to ask any question they want.

el congresso federal knows what's best for you and has passed law after law about discrimination in housing

I think it's mostly covered under "fair housing act"

[7960]

Originally Posted by lew

Why did this ever go to court at all? A private website should be able to ask any question they want.

To inquire electronically about sexual orientation would not be different from asking people in person or by telephone if they were black or Jewish before conducting business...... (so) ...... The Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley and the Fair Housing Council of San Diego filed suit against the Web site, claiming it violated the Fair Housing Act and various state laws.

Because it violated state laws to ask.

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by 7960

Because it violated state laws to ask.

I think they're looking at the federal law since they're at the 9th circuit (fed ct)

[7960]

Originally Posted by Phantom

I think they're looking at the federal law since they're at the 9th circuit (fed ct)

bolded the wrong part

claiming it violated the Fair Housing Act and various state laws

[kinggovernor]

another article:
9th Circuit: No Immunity for Roommates.com Under Communications Decency Act
Dan Levine
The Recorder
04-04-2008

Jawing judges on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals succeeded Thursday in producing what some observers believe is the most nuanced discussion of online content liability in the country to date.

But that doesn't mean they succeeded in agreeing with each other.

Writing for an 8-3 majority, Chief Judge Alex Kozinski found that the housing Web site Roommates.com did not deserve immunity under the Communications Decency Act because the site actively created much of its own problematic content. The site requires users to identify themselves by gender and as either gay or straight, and then uses that information to send e-mails to its customers with compatible preferences. Advocates contend that violates federal fair housing laws.

"Not only does Roommate ask these questions, Roommate makes answering the discriminatory questions a condition of doing business," Kozinski wrote. "This is no different from a real estate broker in real life saying, 'Tell me whether you're Jewish or you can find yourself another broker.'"

In dissent, Judge M. Margaret McKeown protested an "unprecedented" expansion of liability for Internet proprietors.

"My concern is not an empty Chicken Little 'sky is falling' alert," McKeown wrote. "By exposing every interactive service provider to liability for sorting, searching, and utilizing the all too familiar drop-down menus, the majority has dramatically altered the landscape of Internet liability."

Despite the dissent's stridency, one San Francisco lawyer who represented a group of media amici said the majority took good care to delineate just how active a content provider had to be in order to lose immunity. For example, Roommates.com still cannot be sued for content that appears on its passive comment section, said Thomas Burke of Davis Wright Tremaine.

And the majority affirmed several other helpful tenets, Burke said: For one, a provider can take down problematic content without triggering liability for other user-generated material.

"If, like Roommates.com, you create problematic content, this decision will make you reconsider your business practices. But I think very few Web sites do," Burke said. "I think the core of the Internet, in both its search function and its conduit for free-speech activities, is in good shape after this decision."

Michael Evans, a DePaul University College of Law professor who argued for the plaintiff fair housing councils, echoed Burke's point.

"I would challenge the Internet industry to produce other Web sites that do this," Evans said.

Timothy Alger, a Los Angeles-based partner at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges who represented Roommates.com, said it is "disturbing" that the mere allegation of an unlawful posting can trump immunity for Internet-based services.

"We're obviously disappointed in the outcome, and we agree with Judge McKeown that this decision represents a significant departure from what has been settled law across the country," Alger said in an e-mail.

While the en banc ruling provides a much more voluminous opinion than the panel decision on the liability issues, the actual result is identical, and Kozinski wrote both. Judge Sandra Ikuta dissented from the panel along similar lines as McKeown, but Ikuta didn't make it onto the en banc court. Judges Pamela Rymer and Carlos Bea joined McKeown.

Rounding out the en banc majority in Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, 08 C.D.O.S. 3857 were Judges Stephen Reinhardt, Barry Silverman, William Fletcher, Raymond Fisher, Richard Paez, Milan Smith Jr. and N. Randy Smith.

Law.com: 9th Circuit: No Immunity for Roommates.com Under Communications Decency Act

so if you don't want to live with gays or Jews or whites just put it in your profile.

[7960]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

Despite the dissent's stridency, one San Francisco lawyer who represented a group of media amici said the majority took good care to delineate just how active a content provider had to be in order to lose immunity. For example, Roommates.com still cannot be sued for content that appears on its passive comment section, said Thomas Burke of Davis Wright Tremaine.

Right, they can't have a "sexual preference" question, but if you put "I'm gay" in the "other comments section" then roommates.com isn't liable.................. for now.

Really, is it such a stretch to argue "the 'other comments' section has become the default 'sexual preference' question so roommates.com must remove those comments"?

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by 7960

Right, they can't have a "sexual preference" question, but if you put "I'm gay" in the "other comments section" then roommates.com isn't liable.................. for now.

Really, is it such a stretch to argue "the 'other comments' section has become the default 'sexual preference' question so roommates.com must remove those comments"?

websites are not held accountable for what people type. Craigslist won a court case over discrimination of "fair housing"

The Chicago Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law is suing craigslist for 100 allegedly discriminatory ads posted by our Chicago users in a 6 month period, out of 200,000 housing ads submitted to chicago.craigslist.org in that timeframe. While craigslist takes fair housing issues very seriously, and we want to do everything we can to assist our users in promoting fair housing for everyone, the 100 ads cited were a little surprising. Some were roommate ads involving constitutionally protected speech and the right to free association, such as "prefer christian roommate", or were ads containing incidental and harmless remarks such as "near St Gertrude's church," and "Buddhist temple nearby." Others simply celebrated the diversity and tolerance of the local community ("vibrant southwest Hispanic neighborhood offering great classical Mexican culture, restaurants, and businesses"), or sought to appeal to some groups without excluding anyone ("Great apartment for graduate students, married couple, or small family"). And for a few it is difficult to determine what protected classification is at issue ("wants one nice quiet person").

"Fair" Housing Lawsuit Dismissed


Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[7960]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

websites are not held accountable for what people type. Craigslist won a court case over discrimination of "fair housing"

The Chicago Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law is suing craigslist for 100 allegedly discriminatory ads posted by our Chicago users in a 6 month period, out of 200,000 housing ads submitted to chicago.craigslist.org in that timeframe. While craigslist takes fair housing issues very seriously, and we want to do everything we can to assist our users in promoting fair housing for everyone, the 100 ads cited were a little surprising. Some were roommate ads involving constitutionally protected speech and the right to free association, such as "prefer christian roommate", or were ads containing incidental and harmless remarks such as "near St Gertrude's church," and "Buddhist temple nearby." Others simply celebrated the diversity and tolerance of the local community ("vibrant southwest Hispanic neighborhood offering great classical Mexican culture, restaurants, and businesses"), or sought to appeal to some groups without excluding anyone ("Great apartment for graduate students, married couple, or small family"). And for a few it is difficult to determine what protected classification is at issue ("wants one nice quiet person").

"Fair" Housing Lawsuit Dismissed


Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I understand all that. But craigslist is a free form / empty / open page where the person creating the ad can create anything.

What I'm saying is roommate.com has fields for gender / age / smoking / etc so if people start using the comments section for sexual preference then (IMO) someone can argue that if a sexual preference is *not* there then it's going to be harder to get a room...so it's in effect going to turn into the "sexual preference" field.

I think it's bullshit, but I think the argument could be made.

[motivez]

This seems ridiculous to me, if you're looking for a roommate you should be able to decide whether or not you want to live with the person based on whatever characteristics you want to.

Originally Posted by motivez

This seems ridiculous to me, if you're looking for a roommate you should be able to decide whether or not you want to live with the person based on whatever characteristics you want to.

Thats exactly right.


Chalk another crazy ruiling up to the 9th circus.

[A_C_E]

Originally Posted by 7960

To inquire electronically about sexual orientation would not be different from asking people in person or by telephone if they were black or Jewish before conducting business...... (so) ...... The Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley and the Fair Housing Council of San Diego filed suit against the Web site, claiming it violated the Fair Housing Act and various state laws.

Because it violated state laws to ask.

Ahhh, got it.