Beautiful building. Crappy neighborhood. Lousy decisions.
Posted on 05/17/2007 9:03:16 AM PDT by 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
It won’t survive appeal.
They don’t even use the words “Ninth Circuit” anymore.
A dangerous ruling.
Are you sure it was the circuit court?
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?
horse manure
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
>>>Are you sure it was the circuit court?
Second Paragraph: “A three-judge panel of the federal appeals court...”
That’s the 9th Circus...
Apparently, the Fair Housing Act implicity covers more than just landlords.
I just noticed that, thanks.
Beautiful building. Crappy neighborhood. Lousy decisions.
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.
Liberals are so concerned with an individuals right to choose1
Bet they won’t allow you to specify “smoking.”
Only when it concerns abortions, sexual partners, or drugs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.