Judges: craigslist is just a 'messenger'
Court upholds earlier decision
By Glenn Roberts Jr., Monday, March 17, 2008.Bookmarking Sites
Online classified and community site craigslist is just a "messenger" and is not liable for discriminatory ads posted on the site by its users, a three-judge panel for the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals concluded in a ruling released Friday.
The judges upheld a November 2006 ruling by a U.S. District Court, which found that craigslist is considered an "interactive computer service" under federal law, and is not a publisher.
In February 2006, the Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law sued craigslist for a series of rental housing ads containing discriminatory language that appeared on the site.
The lawyers' group, a nonprofit entity that advocates for affordable housing and fair-housing law compliance, found examples of discriminatory language posted at the site during 2005 such as, "no minorities," "no children," and "clean, godly Christian male."
At issue in the lawsuit and appeal was whether the U.S. Communications Decency Act, passed in 1996, offers protections for online companies like craigslist when users post illegal content.
Stephen D. Libowsky, who represented the Chicago lawyers' group, had argued in a hearing last month that Congress did not intend to "totally immunize Internet service providers" for offensive content and that Congress intended "to encourage and incentivize Internet service providers to block and screen offensive material" when it passed the Communications Decency Act.
Craigslist, meanwhile, had argued that provisions in that act provide "broad immunity from liability for unlawful third-party content."
But the Court of Appeals panel found that the relevant section in the legislation does not mention immunity. The judges referenced an earlier decision, which found that the federal act "never requires (Internet service providers) to filter offensive content, and thus ... would not preempt state laws or common-law doctrines that induce or require ISPs to protect the interests of third parties."
ISPs can be liable for contributing to infringement, for example, "if their system is designed to help people steal music or other material in copyright," as in the case against file-sharing site Grokster Ltd.
In that case, the federal act did not grant "comprehensive immunity from civil liability for content provided by a third party."
But the judges found that craigslist does not induce anyone "to post any particular listing or express a preference for discrimination." Craigslist was no more responsible for the discriminatory postings than a phone company, courier service, or the computer manufacturers that built the machines used to transmit the discriminatory posts, the judges found.
"Using the remarkably candid postings on craigslist, the lawyers' committee can identify many targets to investigate. It can dispatch testers and collect damages from any landlord or owner who engages in discrimination. It can assembly a list of names and send (them) to the attorney general for prosecution.
But under the provisions of the federal Communications Decency Act, "it cannot sue the messenger just because the message reveals a third party's plan to engage in unlawful discrimination," they concluded.
Craigslist officials could not be reached for comment Friday about the decision.
Libowsky said Friday that it's too early to know whether the lawyers' committee will ask all of the judges in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider the decision by the three-judge panel.
"We are working our way through the various parts of the decision to see where, if anywhere, we go from here," he said, adding that the committee is "very pleased" that the panel rejected craigslist's "blanket immunity" position in the case.
The decision also makes it clear that people who post discriminatory ads on such online sites "can't run and hide behind some Web site," and the opinion gives support for sites to give up information about users who post discriminatory ads, "whether they do it voluntarily or through court order."
He also noted that craigslist had made certain changes related to housing posts at the site in an effort to thwart discriminatory postings, whether the threat of the lawyers' group's lawsuit or the actual lawsuit prompted those changes.
It remains to be seen, he also said, whether other sites will choose to take steps to discourage discriminatory ads.
***
What's your opinion? Leave your comments below or send a letter to the editor. To contact the writer, click the byline at the top of the story.
All rights reserved. This article may not be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever, in part or in whole, without written permission of Inman News. Use of this article without permission is a violation of federal copyright law.
Add A Comment
You must login or register to post a comment.
Submitted by Jim Doak on March 18, 2008 - 11:08am.
Of course Craig’s List is only a messenger; a messenger for misrepresentation, a messenger for fraud, and now a messenger for racism and bigotry. It’s time for Buyers to wake up to the fact that CL is nothing more than a glorified FSBO, e-rag, that exists to save sellers a commission at the expense of the buyer.
When a buyer purchases a home that is listed through a Licensed and insured Real Estate agent, that agent becomes the “checks and balance” point of all distributed information to the public. That’s why you almost never see blatant fraud, misrepresentation, or racism in any Realtor advertising. A Broker is staking their License, Livelihood, and Reputation on each home that they sell.
So when you buy that FSBO off CL that advertises a “3 bed / 2 bath w/new roof and furnace; no minorities or non-Christians”, don’t be surprised that first week when your “new roof” starts leaking, and your dead furnace leaves you shivering in the cold.
Don’t worry though. I’m sure you will sleep better knowing that you just saved the seller $1000’s in commissions.
Jim D.
Real Estate Broker
Portland, OR
Submitted by Susan Thomas on March 18, 2008 - 1:44pm.
Of COURSE Craigs List is just a messenger-what WAS the question? (Darn those Constitutional rights---however unpleasant they may be for us from time to time!)
For anyone that doesn't know this already the real estate industry was rife with all sorts of things that would never fly by today's regualtions. However, make no mistake that it TOOK Federal and State regualtions to make them stop all the creative things that used to be in listings! Agents and Brokers would put whatever a seller wanted in a listing to get the listing! They just don't now because they will loose their license and then some.
Agents/Brokers do not warrant the condition of the homes they sell. Buyers usualy choose to get inspections. Is getting an inspection even a question for a buyer anymore? I'll bet there are a million stories of peoople using a traditional agent to buy a home and ended up with a leaky roof or plumbing problems. Using an agent or not, and sometimes even getting an inspection, doesn't change that outcome in the least. There are things that happen to a home that even an inspector can overlook or happen after the inpsection. Everyone tries to be as informed as they can be. Home Warranties offered to sellers and then buyers after they close can be a big help in this department. Most Brokers have plans to offer such as that. It is a wise choice for the seller and the buyer alike.
I know there are a lot of stories of listing agents out there that become invisable after the home is listed and also do not do much on any of the promises they made to get the listing. I know this because I hear those stories every day in our flat fee MLS listing service. The consumer should have a CHOICE to be pro-active in selling their home and saving money or evauluate their need for a traditional real estate agent and pay the higher commission gladly.
There is more than enough room in the selling market place for different ways to sell a person's home to meet the seller's needs.
What there isn't room for is strong-arm scare tactics that insult the intelligence of the consuming adult that says that sellers don't have the ability to ask questions and seek out an attorney or an inspector and make an informed choice when selling or buying. That they MUST use an agent to sell or buy or they have just committed some crime against humanity in a genuine effort to do it themselves. (So, with that in mind -no-one should EVER do their own taxes, do their own home repairs or car repairs to clothing repairs or build anything.....you MUST get someone that knows what they are doing!) HUH????
For people that feel they need a traditional agent's many services and have the room in their equity to pay the commission rate, that is the way to go if they want! If a seller would rather take on the head-ship and be pro-active in the selling process, ask questions and seek out an attorney and an inspector, flat fee mls listing services will save you thousands of dollars on the listing side of the selling equation. Most services offer the additional services of an agent if the seller does feel more help is needed--but that should be your choice on how much help you need and what services you want to pay for.
Jim D. said one thing right---there is a way to save thousands of dollars of your own equity in selling your home! Check it out on the Net! Flat Fee MLS listing service in your State! You get all the exposure and more than a traditional agent sometimes chooses to provide and Realtor.com as well! You only pay commission to an agent if there is one involved in the contract you choose to sign. At least the commission is being paid to the agent that acutally brought the buyer! If there is no agent, then no commission is paid!
America- gotta love it! Free enterprise and honest choices for us all!
Susan Thomas, Managing Broker
CENTURY 21 Clickit, Inc.
www.c21clickit.com
Submitted by Jim Doak on March 19, 2008 - 2:11pm.
I’m not sure how a blog about Craig’s List turned into a full page ad for Flat-fee Brokerages, but ok.
First of all, I don’t have a problem with discount brokers working for minimum wage. Again, God Bless America if that’s the niche you want to fill. What I do have a problem with is that a lot of these discount brokers, who may or may not carry E & O insurance, are taking limited representation listings without even stepping foot on the property. In some cases, several of these “discount” Brokers don’t even reside in the same state as the property they are listing.
I don’t know what it’s like in your State, but here in Oregon, there is no required upfront disclosure (in the advertising) that distinguishes between listings with different agency relationships. Regardless of your opinion of fully represented listings vs. limited representation, I believe that a buyer should have a right to know, upfront, what the agency relationship is. I also believe that there should be an upfront disclosure that indicates whether or not the listing agent carries Errors & Omissions insurance. In other words, if a buyer is financially harmed because a seller misrepresents/omits material defects or issues regarding the property that an agent could have or should have known about, that buyer should be informed upfront of whether or not that agent has insurance in which the buyer could make a claim.
You are right in that “Agents/Brokers do not ‘warrant’ the condition of the homes they sell”, but in my State, agents that fully represent a seller can be held liable if the agent should have (or reasonably could have) known of any seller misrepresentation or fraud.
If you have been in this business any length of time, you will know that not all cases of misrepresentation involve physical issues that can be spotted by a home inspector.
All I’m saying is this; if discount Brokers want to advertise their limited representation listings in the same arena as traditional, full representation listings, there should be a distinction made in the advertising so that consumers can make informed decisions.
Better yet, how about law makers take a step toward protecting the consumers and require all Real estate brokers to be bonded or carry liability insurance (like any other reputable profession in the country)? Eventually the market (via insurance companies) will dictate which type of “limited brokerage services” are worth insuring, and which are too risky to economically support. In the meantime, buyers get protection, and this whole thing works itself out.
Jim D
Real Estate Broker
Portland, OR
WWW.Idontuseblogstoadvertisemyrealestateservices