Court: Web site liable for postings

GOPUSA ^ | May 17, 2007 | UPI Staff (United Press International)

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

SAN FRANCISCO (UPI) -- A court in San Francisco ruled that a roommate-matching Web site may be held accountable for what users say about their preferences.

A three-judge panel of the federal appeals court ruled in favor of two California fair housing groups that brought the complaint against Roommate.com, saying the Web site violates the Fair Housing Act by allowing users to specify roommate preferences based on sex, race, religion and sexual orientation, The New York Times reported Wednesday.

The ruling took away the main argument of the defense: that a 1996 ruling granting immunity to Internet service providers that transmit unlawful material supplied by others extended to the case. The judges ruled that the law was not applicable because Roommates.com created the menus that invite the unlawful information.

Eric Goldman, a law professor at Santa Clara University, said the decision represented an important shift.

"To date," he said, "The law has been almost uniform that a Web site isn't liable for what its users say. The problem here is that the Web site offered up choices for users to structure their remarks. That creates a hole plaintiffs can exploit."

Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved

[Jake The Goose]

It won’t survive appeal.

[AmishDude]

They don’t even use the words “Ninth Circuit” anymore.

[HEY4QDEMS]

A dangerous ruling.

[HEY4QDEMS]

Are you sure it was the circuit court?

[Cicero]

So if you want a pretty girl for a roommate, you can’t complain if they give you a whip-wielding transvestite instead?

Or if three college girls want a fourth girl, they’re not allowed to say so?

[sageb1]

horse manure

[trimom]

Am I confused? I can advertise for a roommate, but I can’t specify that it needs to be a woman? Bet I can mention non-smoking! LOL

[Gay State Conservative]

The “race” and “religion” parts will probably survive appeal.Not sure about the “sexual orientation” part.But the “sex” part will be thrown out for sure.

[KarlInOhio]

You can't advertise what you want. They just have to interview everyone and reject those you don't want for "unspecified personality differences".

[Keith in Iowa]

>>>Are you sure it was the circuit court?

Second Paragraph: “A three-judge panel of the federal appeals court...”

That’s the 9th Circus...

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Apparently, the Fair Housing Act implicity covers more than just landlords.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

implicity = implicitly d-oh!

[HEY4QDEMS]

I just noticed that, thanks.

[martin_fierro]

9th Circus is THE Federal appeals court in SF:

Beautiful building. Crappy neighborhood. Lousy decisions.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Well, it does say “A three-judge panel of the federal appeals court.” I was under the impression that an appeals court IS a circuit court.

[Ender Wiggin]

Liberals are so concerned with an individuals right to choose1

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Bet they won’t allow you to specify “smoking.”

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Only when it concerns abortions, sexual partners, or drugs.

[HEY4QDEMS]

Unless the want to choose between a Colt or a S&W.

[AmishDude]

You’re right. I’m not sure. But “3 judge panel”+”federal appeals court” usually means a circuit.

[PGalt]

Precedence or Penumbra? /sarcasm

[TomGuy]

“Ninth Circuit”

Republicans should try to get control of Congress and the White House so they can break up the “Ninth Circuit”.

[/s]

[snicker — the Pubbies squandered their majority]

[Eva]

The choice of a roommate is not the same as the choice of a renter or purchaser. The gov’t cannot limit the right to choose who you live with.

[MortMan]

Neither precedence nor penumbra. That odor is the 9th circuses emanation! ;-P

[null and void]

It won’t survive appeal.

I hope not.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Apparently it is, according to these nitwits.

[Idaho Whacko]

Yup. It is all part of the communist manifesto for taking over the US. Weaken morality, weaken the family.

[AmishDude]

And it’s so much better now.

[PGalt]

The rotting robes adjudicating themselves into a coroner?

[B4Ranch]

If this survives the circuit, we are done for.

The UN Charter will be replacing our Constitution and Bill of Rights faster than I feared.

[NorthFlaRebel]

The choice of a roommate is not the same as the choice of a renter or purchaser. The gov’t cannot limit the right to choose who you live with.

Yeh, my local paper is full of adds for roomates that specify all sorts of things like sex, age, marital status, smoking/non-smoking, christian, etc..

[John Jorsett]

They don’t even use the words “Ninth Circuit” anymore.

That's because it's become synonymous with "overturned." It'll probably be a verb in the future: "That decision was 9th Circuited."

[Al Gator]

I thought the first ammendment guranteed a right to freely associate. This right to associate implies a converse right to “dis-associate” or associate with folks “other than” those who are not of like mind etc...

If one case, just one case were argued from this point of view, maybe these “Fair Housing, everybody MUST mingle” Nazis would get their a$$es kicked.

[Political Junkie Too]

...the Web site violates the Fair Housing Act by allowing users to specify roommate preferences based on sex, race, religion and sexual orientation...

Is this really the same thing? It doesn't seem to be about owners/landlords denying the rental based on personal preferences; it's about a tenant already paying rent advertising for a roomate to share the bills. I can't see how that counts towards fair housing in the same vein as an owner renting the property in the first place.

With that aside, I can see how this ruling becomes extended to cover posted comments on other websites, such as Free Republic. If this stands, I bet someone will use the precedent to force the owners of Free Republic to be responsible for all posts by anyone on this site. Then you'd really have a problem with mischievous dissenters signing up to intentionally post "wrongful content" as a prelude to attacking the site legally.

-PJ

[caseinpoint]

What’s idiotic about this ruling is that the preferences are really a service to potential homehunters who would never be seriously considered for the spot. Now they have to search and waste time chasing down and/or interviewing people who will reject them. (Of course, if they hide their preferences until later—say after they are accepted or even move in—and then are asked to leave, there’s probably a lawsuit waiting to happen.)

[antiRepublicrat]

This decision is not bad. First, remember that this ruling has nothing to do with this use of the Fair Housing Act or the whole issue that a free people should be able to choose who they want as roommates. This is only about safe harbor provisions. Sites like Free Republic have safe harbor because we as the posters have 100% control over the content we post. Free Republic only gives us a place to do it, does not guide our content in any way.

This site set up a questionnaire that shaped the posted content. Posters were required to choose between options generated by the site. Those options went into the post, and therefore the site was partially responsible for the content.

Since the site was partially responsible for content, it is no longer covered under the safe harbor provisions. Note that the court ruled that any potentially law-violating content in the free-form submission part of the site is still covered by safe harbor (although one idiot judge dissented on that).

[ElkGroveDan]

Based on that reasoning the dating services will be next. “How dare anyone ask about gender while looking for a romantic relationship!” Mark my words.

[Steve_Seattle]

So it’s against the law to specify the kind of person you would like to have as your own roommate? And liberals claim to be AGAINST intrusive, in-your-bedroom government? What a bunch of frauds liberals are.

[antiRepublicrat]

And liberals claim to be AGAINST intrusive, in-your-bedroom government?

They're trying to make straight people get more gay roommates, whether forced or accidentally (because they weren't allowed to ask), and they're hoping for conversions.

[MortMan]

The rotting robes adjudicating themselves into a coroner?

I've gotta ask... Was "coroner" a typo or a pun?

Either way - LOL! ;-P

[PGalt]

No typo.

[Dilbert San Diego]

Just wait for more lawsuits against on-line dating / match making services. There’s one that advertises on TV a lot, which have only opposite sex couples featured talking about how they met via that web site. I expect a lawsuit in Massachusetts since it’s clearly discrimination because same-sex marriage is legal there.

There is a slippery slope but some in the gay community want to deny there is a slippery slope.

[antiRepublicrat]

Based on that reasoning the dating services will be next. “How dare anyone ask about gender while looking for a romantic relationship!” Mark my words.

I long ago stopped saying "That's ridiculous, the government would never do that." I was proven wrong too many times.

[Cicero]

Great. How convenient for all concerned.

[Cacique]

btt

STOP AMNESTY NOW!! WE CAN DO IT!!

[GoldCountryRedneck]

Free Republic...does not guide our content in any way.

Ahmmmm, ZOTee's might take issue with you there...

[Bob J]

“Sites like Free Republic have safe harbor because we as the posters have 100% control over the content we post.”

The latest dust up and purge of Rudy backers may contradict that.

[Titan Magroyne]

I thought the first ammendment guranteed a right to freely associate. This right to associate implies a converse right to “dis-associate” or associate with folks “other than” those who are not of like mind etc...

If one case, just one case were argued from this point of view, maybe these “Fair Housing, everybody MUST mingle” Nazis would get their a$$es kicked.
BINGO!

Accourse, before this decision, you woulda thought neccesity for such a lawsuit would have been preempted by common sense.

I visited the website to see for myself exactly how the menus were worded but declined to wade through the membership signup process that you have to go through first.