Jake Noss TCOM Brief 11_7_2014

Jake Noss

TCOM348

November 6, 2014

Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Inc.

v.

Craigslist, Inc.

No. 07-1101
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
519 F.3d 666; 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 5472; 36 Media L. Rep. 1609
February 15, 2008, Argued
March 14, 2008, Decided

This case revolves around users of the popular advertising site Craigslist. According to the accompanying Wikipedia page, Craigslist is defined as a “classified advertisements website with sections devoted to jobs, housing, personals, for sale, items wanted, services, community, gigs, resumes, and discussion forums.” The Chicago Lawyers’ Committee contend that Craigslist is violating 42 U.S.C. subsection 3604 (c) of the Fair Housing Act by allowing users to publish discriminatory adds for sale or rent of apartments/houses/condominiums etc.

42 U.S.C. subsection 3604 (c) of the Fair Housing Act explains that it is unlawful “To refuse to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, or to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.” The Chicago Lawyers’ Committee put forth examples of advertisements featured on Craigslist that said “NO MINORITIES” and “No children.” These advertisements, however, did satisfy the exemption written in 42 U.S.C. subsection 3603 (b) (1) that excludes single family homes being sold or rented by an owner who does not own more than three single family homes.

The Chicago Lawyers’ Committee, in short, wanted Craigslist to implement some kind of filtering system to prevent potentially discriminatory or offensive information from their postings. To put these filters in place would cost money and labor that Craigslist felt was unnecessary. Craigslist sited 47 U.S.C.S. subsection 230 (c) (1), which removes liability of the online service provider from the content posted by a third-party user. The Chicago Lawyers’ Committee focused their arguments on subsection 230 (c) (2), which ensures protection of “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening for offensive material, which unfortunately, doesn’t apply to this case as well as they hoped, or at least the judge didn’t feel that it did.

Circuit Judges Wood and Evans eventually awarded summary judgment in favor of Craigslist. The district court decision was later affirmed by Chief Judge Esterbrook; in his opinion saying that Craigslist was not liable for the content posted by its users according to 47 U.S.C.S. subsection 230 (c) (1). He stated that only if Craigslist produced offensive material would they then fall out of protection of the law. He then stated that if the Chicago Lawyers’ Committee wished, they could go after each individual landlord who is being unlawfully discriminatory, but they cannot hold Craigslist responsible for what is posted. Esterbrook later puts his decision into perspective by saying, “if Craigslist ‘causes’ the discriminatory notices, then so do phone companies and courier services (and, for that matter, the firms that make the computers and software that owners use to post their notices online), yet no one could think that Microsoft and Dell are liable for ‘causing’ discriminatory advertisements.” 

This case gives relief to online service providers because it helps solidify the “don’t shoot the messenger” mentality that was created by 47 U.S.C.S subsection 230. This puts the responsibility on the shoulders of the writers/publishers of content and not on the medium in which they wish to broadcast it in. The law protects lawful online service providers from being slowed down by tedious and resource consuming work of filtering all speech that runs through their website.