Craigslist Sued By Those Who Misunderstand Internet Law

from the platform,-not-publisher dept

How many of these types of lawsuits are we going to have before people realize that service/platform providers are not responsible for the content that people put into their service? This has been codified into law for ISPs and others, and yet the lawyers keep on suing. The latest is that Craigslist is being sued for discriminatory housing ads on its site. Craigslist isn’t publishing the ads — they’re just the platform for individuals to publish their own ads. If the fair housing group wanted to target those responsible, it should sue the people who actually posted the ads, not Craigslist.


Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Craigslist Sued By Those Who Misunderstand Internet Law”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
57 Comments
Anonymous Coward says:

Don't hate the messenger...

I hate ignorance and prejudice as much as the next guy but simply ignoring and blocking out all the “bad stuff” isn’t going to change how people think. The people that make these ads aren’t going to magically like non-whites, non-gays, whatever just because they can’t put that information in their ads.

No, what would happen is that some black guy sees the ad, goes to inquire about the housing and then gets rejected without being told a reason.

All we’ve done is wasted this preson’s time just because racism hurts our sensitive wittle eyes.

Just get over it. Unless these prejudice people are operating an actual business, their beliefs are thier own problem, but if it is a business then sue the fucking business!

law student says:

Re: Don't hate the messenger...

Im afriad a lot of these posters (craigslist employee specifically) are correct. Discriminatory housing ads are illegal, in newspapers, private adds an otherwise. People who know nothing about the law shouldnt speak as if they did. DO some research before making such statements.

monkey says:

Re: Re: welll....

descriminatory statements are first amendment guaranteed in a public forum(craigslist), and are illegal for goods and services ad’s in a subscription based public service organization(capitalist whakko newspapers). The forum administrator decides what the forum is about. the kkk is a legal organisation. naacp. legal.
calls to action for illegal activity is a crime, but the individual who makes the call is responsible. The forum administrator could very well be held responsible for failing to Try to stop the crime. 1/640,000. i’d call that trying.

law student says:

Re: Re: Re: welll....

WRONG.

Look up a few things before you make such statements. If you post kiddie porn or a request for such on your website, regardless of whether its your add or not, you posting it in public forum makes you liable. If there wasnt an issue, the casre would have been dismissed already.

Thank goodness this country wasnt created by such people.

PS – by the way, the KKK is classified as a TERRORIST ORGANIZATION by several federal government organizations, same as the aryan nations. Its not illegal to be one of them, but it is condition to strict scrutiny of its members actions.

student says:

Re: Don't hate the messenger...

[quote-I’m afraid you’re missing the point. Yes, the ads are illegal, but the question is *who’s responsibility* is it. And, in that, the law is clear. It’s the person who posted the ad, and NOT Craigslits — yet Craigslist is being sued.[/quote]

Thats what the lawsuit is there t determine. Newspapers who post illegal adds are held to some degree of responsibility, ALONG WITH the poster. The add poster has a responsibility not to post illegal adds

Mike (profile) says:

Re: Re: Don't hate the messenger...


Thats what the lawsuit is there t determine. Newspapers who post illegal adds are held to some degree of responsibility, ALONG WITH the poster. The add poster has a responsibility not to post illegal adds

It’s different with newspapers who first approve the ads. The law has been clear in the past that an open forum where people can post whatever they want, the responsibility for content is with whoever posted the content — not the forum provider.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Don't hate the messenger...

[quote]Thats what the lawsuit is there t determine. Newspapers who post illegal adds are held to some degree of responsibility, ALONG WITH the poster. The add poster has a responsibility not to post illegal adds[/quote]

with newspaper ads, its different, because every ad is proofread and approved before posting. while everyone wants to compare craigslist to newspapers as if its a 1-to-1 correspondence is making a mistake. they are inherently different in how they work. craigslist cannot be held to the same standards as a newspaper.

1happynewyorker says:

Re: Re: Don't hate the messenger...

I disagree with that statement. Everyone is not racist. I do believe that many people are prejudice against those who do not look and think like them.

Moreover, just b/ many people are racist does not make it right. The face that many people smoke crack, does not make it right.

I work with some intellignet people,and it never ceases to amaze me how many people are “prejudice” against other races/ethnicities.

I was in the steam room with my boss the other day and she said, “I hate Jews”. ?What? I said and she repeated the statement. I thought I was going to vomit. I was stunned. Now, this person is a card-carrying memeber of MENSA. Why she felt comfortable enough around me to say this, well I still baffled, since I am obviously Black.

Zoinks! says:

Re: Re: Re: Don't hate the messenger...

hopefully everyone caught the IMPORTANT part of what was just written…..

“was in the steam room with my boss the other day…”

Now, while not so much so with my current supervisor (actually not at all) that would be a cool thing to be able to say (provided you weren’t just there to pour water on the rocks.

Craigslist Employee says:

Re: Offline

I work for Craigslist.

So I am really getting a kick out of most of these replies.

Some of you guys are very good at making it sound like you know what you are talking about.

But trust me…. You don’t.

I think you just want to make yourself sound smart, when in reality you dont know what you are talking about.

This is how bad info gets passed around.

If you dont know about the topic….Dont make yourself sound like you do.

Cuz some Techdirt readers believe anything they hear.

Imfbsbn says:

Re: Re: Re: Conspiracy Theory

Per the Chicago Tribune ” The Chicago Lawyers’ Committee has 44 member firms whose lawyers do pro bono work for civil rights, particularly for housing and hate crime issues…”
So it’s a bunch of rich white guys sending a bunch of first year associates to go do some free legal work so they can claim how they help the cummunity.
Grrrr.

monkey says:

Re: Re: Offline

what don’t i know about the topic? you must be in the know about some craigslist issues. could you post some information about the suit? I hope craigslist is going to be ok. racism in personal ads is not allowed in most newspapers. perhaps the suit is an illustration of the need for craigslist to edit or remove ad postings for content. This would increase costs and force craigslist to capitalise on portions of it’s ad base, but it could still be a good thing. if the list survives.

Landon says:

Re: Re: Cuz

Mr. Craiglist Employee:
Thank you for telling everyone that techdirt posters dont know what they are talking about. I am sure every single person, on every single article realizes that people do this. You are a genius. You are the true intellect of TechDirt. I wish everyone was like you.

Ok, I am sure by now that you get that just puting people down does absolutely nothing, and you contributed nothing to this article. I am pretty sure that the point of this site is to share opinions, and you have not realized that. Of course, most people will try to disguise their opinion as a fact, as is human tendency. Now, why do you even read the postings if you have a problem with them? Was the color comics not enough entertainment for you?

I would suggest that instead of telling everyone that they dont know anything, that you tell them the facts, and what is really happening. I am sure that it would be greatly appreciated.

heavyw8t says:

Re: Re: Here is the post from Fark.

2006-02-08 01:46:49 AM the oob

I’m married to a fourteen year old.

So I am really getting a kick out of most of these replies.

Some of you guys are very good at making it sound like you know what you are talking about.

But trust me…. You don’t.

I think you just want to make yourself sound smart, when in reality you dont know what you are talking about.

This is how bad info gets passed around.

If you dont know about the topic….Dont make yourself sound like you do.

Cuz some Farkers believe anything they hear.

Note the same misspelling/typo on the word “don’t”. 3 times. And the use of “cuz” rather than “because”. Not only a dork, but an illiterate dork as well.

Dam says:

It's the law

Discrimination in ads has been prohibited for many years, and the fact that these appear in an electronic format instead of paper shouldn’t matter. It does at this point, because no law specifically addresses the electronic format.

Any ruling that comes out of these lawsuits has the potential for being a landmark case.

Mike (profile) says:

Re: It's the law

Discrimination in ads has been prohibited for many years, and the fact that these appear in an electronic format instead of paper shouldn’t matter. It does at this point, because no law specifically addresses the electronic format.

I’m afraid you’re missing the point. Yes, the ads are illegal, but the question is *who’s responsibility* is it. And, in that, the law is clear. It’s the person who posted the ad, and NOT Craigslits — yet Craigslist is being sued.

Robert says:

Re: Re: It's the law

“And, in that, the law is clear.”

Actually, the law is not clear.. yet. Internet law is still in its infancy in most places. For example, in many states there still aren’t even any consumer protection laws against misleading advertising on the internet, as there are for printed ads, yet the internet has already seen over 10 years of public use in this regard.

In a printed medium, it is normally the publisher or editor who controls the content. On Craigslist, it is the user. The law will probably move toward that end, eventually. In the meantime, pressure will mount on Craigslist to take responsibility until the law catches up.

monkey says:

internet gangs.

it looks like the internet is going to be socially cleansed for innappropriate content by the capitalist press. hmm. sounds like an undertaking where lots of lawyers make lots of money and everyone else suffers.
craigslist has been accused of having approx 100 racially biased housing ad’s in eight months, while there are 8M ad’s per month running. I think ad hoc self policing is working pretty damned efficiently.
1/640,000th of craigslist ad’s contain racial bias?
blood in the water for greedy newspaper accountants.

Denfro Licious says:

Hmmm

Well that law seems strange. Doesn’t it go against freedom of speech? A newspaper or a website, such as craigslist in this case, is simply the vehicle used to transport the writer’s opinion. This would suggest that forums and blogs are a part of that jurisdiction. Why don’t they go sue MySpace and Blogger?

I’m certainly against discrimination but the newspaper or websites should not be the ones being sued. Discrimination is an opinion and it is ever so difficult to take action on an online source. Do you notice how much more political the internet is becoming?

law student says:

No Subject Given

Sorryt o burst all your bubbles, but the LAW says that the webmaster/newspaper/magazine editor all hold some responsibility to what exists on their sites, particularly when the site proports to be a lever of interstate commerce (which craigslist falls under).

This is america, we dont make up the law as we go, we abide by it. Stick to your personal opinions and dont make liars of yourselves by proporting your opinions as set law.

Mike (profile) says:

Re: No Subject Given

Sorryt o burst all your bubbles, but the LAW says that the webmaster/newspaper/magazine editor all hold some responsibility to what exists on their sites, particularly when the site proports to be a lever of interstate commerce (which craigslist falls under).

Er… no. The courts have been pretty consistent in saying that, in an open forum, the posted content is the responsibility of the posting parties, and not the forum owner. This is also codified into the DMCA in order to protect ISPs from being held liable for things their users do.

Landon says:

Re: Re: No Subject Given

Is anyone here familiar with lawyers? I know a little bit about them. I mean, I at least know enough about them to know that they usually dot the i’s, and cross the t’s. That being said, its America, not america. Also, you should use correct punctuation, grammer, spellings, and so forth. Also, cite your sources.

Mark C (user link) says:

Re: Re: No Subject Given

I’m going to have to agree with Mike on this one. This is a annonymous posting site where you can post whatever you please. Even the email addresses are hidden! Having a huge forum (8+million posts) like craigslist is a huge undertaking, for one. Expecting anybody to try and moderate that (which they do try to) is incredible. I, for one, have never posted on craigslist but I surfed on over to their website to see if I could post something. Within 30 seconds I went through the pages and could’ve posted my ad for whatever but it would’ve been fake anyway.

The point is that this is a free forum. Emphasis on the word free in the sense of money. Craigslist doesn’t charge to put your ad up on the site while newspapers/magazines actually do thereby they are indeed more responsible for their content than a website.

Craigslist Employee's Employee says:

I work for...

I work for Craigslist Employee.

So I am really getting a kick out of most of these replies.

Some of you guys are very good at making it sound like you know what you are talking about.

But trust me…. You don’t.

I think you just want to make yourself sound smart, when in reality you dont know what you are talking about.

This is how bad info gets passed around.

If you dont know about the topic….Dont make yourself sound like you do.

Cuz some Techdirt readers believe anything they hear

Craigslist's Employee's Employee's Intern says:

I work for Craigslist’s Employee’s Employee.

So I am really getting a kick out of most of these replies.

Some of you guys are very good at making it sound like you know what you are talking about.

But trust me…. You don’t.

I think you just want to make yourself sound smart, when in reality you dont know what you are talking about.

This is how bad info gets passed around.

If you dont know about the topic….Dont make yourself sound like you do.

Cuz some Techdirt readers believe anything they hear

darrylzen@verizon.net says:

Craigslist andsuits against craigslist

Freedom of speech is different than promoting something illegal.

IF the ad is illegal or the content is illegal (I’ve not read the ads mentioned), then Freedom of speech is out the window and irrelevant.

First, if there is an illegal ad or illegal contect, craigslist shouldn’t post it and should monitor the ads , like any responsible company would do , and STOP the questionable ads or be held liable for helping the promotion of whatever the ad is selling.

CRAIGLIST is not immune to the law. (For example, if Macys or Sears, or some large company began posting ads advertising for prostitutes , then all of these companies would be liable and they would be investigated by the police department and the government. (I’m not comparing the two issues, but trying to make a very obvious point here) .

Why shouldn’t craigslist be held responsible for what they print? THey should indeed. So, for example if craigslist has an advertisement selling guns to four year old children, that’s illegal –so yes, craigslist is the messenger –and in this case and in all illegal cases, YES hold the messenger responsible for all the content of its’ website.

If craigslist claims they can’t monitor the contents, then craigslist should go out of business IF the problem is posting illegal things.

If you reply to this post, kindly do so in a civil manner without any name-calling. That kind of response -a civil one – will be appreciated.

I’m not against craiglist. I like the site and feel that it’s very helpful to some people. BUt just because a site is helpful to some people, that doesn’t give it a special privilege to post or promote things that are illegal.

Thanks for listening.

Just Me says:

Re: Craigslist andsuits against craigslist

Your point makes sense morally . . . but there’s points here that you just simply don’t know exist. If you did, you would save your breath because you would know that is was being wasted, not only your breath, but your time. Of course everyone knows whats going on including the owners of such sites. But the owners aren’t going to publicly explain it to you, they’re going to let you find out on your own. Trying to explain what can not be changed only to get you all twisted up is bad publicity brought on for no reason at all. The world as a whole changes and people complain about it all the time, but it just keeps on doing the inevitable. Sorry . . . back to the point that you don’t know about. It has to do with the Internet. If you want to do something illegal and then disappear, it’s as easy as turning off you computer and then logging back on, like morphing from a dirt field in the middle of Texas to an island in the middle of the ocean. Do you have any idea how many sites there are where people advertise erotic services. The sites are legal because if you truly could just eliminate prostitution, they would just all become strippers, hence Erotic Services and that’s what the sites claim they are there for. There’s plenty marketing mediums for the prostitutes to market on right now, shut down ER on CL and TheNewList.com will be up that very minute. You can holler all you want, it’s simply like trying to stop a tsunami. Seriously evaluate the whole scenario, trains of thought and opinions that once applied in a later time, just don’t in this time. Seriously, shut down ER on CL and I could have a site up instantly that sold Q-Tips, include an Erotic Services section (for strippers of course) spread the word just a little and I’d be instantly rich from selling Q-Tips. Creating a law to monitor the ER section is a waste of judicial time too and that’s why they don’t do it. Anyone who offered a term like Girl Friend Experience would simple become Pretty House Cleaner. All of this would happen in a blink . . . understand? Believe me? It’s the bottom line truth and I’m pretty sure everybody wants to understand that while participating in any discussion. I would prefer all things richeous in the world, but getting heated over this is like getting pissed that you can’t leap tall buildings in a single bound 😉 CL isn’t the only medium, there’s been tons of them since the Internet became popular enough. You’re just now hearing about it is all. Damn I’m rambling . . . sorry 😉
Oh and to answer the first question . . . people sue entities like CL for cases they know they can’t win for instant publicity. File lawsuit and just like real magic, you’re Big News associated with the headline “Craigslist Sued” He doesn’t care that he’s going to lose, losing won’t hurt his rep in this rare occasion. It’s the same reason reporters pretend to be impartial, so people will watch them on the news too. Sometimes you find yourself caught up “in” the movie . . take a seat outside the tv/box . . it’s a larger perspective from wich to be a critic 😉

underssoXxo says:

Discriminatory ads on craigslist welcome by craigs

craigslist has become a joke. a few times when i have seen an ad that was extremely discriminatory, i contacted craiglist. on one, a person named clint got back to me and asked for specific info. i got back to him with it. but a week later, the ad still stood. this is what the ad said: “Nanny wanted. Pakistanis, Polish, and Afganis need only apply. Not interested in any other ethnicities.”
Is this blatant discrimination or what? Craigslist was contacted, clearly got the message, and looked away.

Linda says:

Craigslist harrasess an elderly lady with cancer.

These idiots who work for craigslist calling them selves “customer support” should be renamed customer harassers.”
They are extremely rude. My mother who has cancer tried to post a support page for peple to contact her and they emailed her 13 emails with abusive and harassing threats.

What is wrong with craigslist. Wy do people not stop this horrible platform?

dr says:

I couldn’t disagree more. People can hide behind anonymity on Craigslist or set up fake accounts. Craigslist has a responsibility to monitor what people are posting. This is the problem with the Internet, there’s no credibility. Real journalism (as opposed to Blogging) is filtered through editors who fact check. I believe Craigslist should absolutely be sued for allowing hatred and racism to be posted publicly.

Internet Lawyer (user link) says:

Internet Lawyer

I am a lawyer.

First, I should mention a couple of things.. I didn’t read all of this thread, so I’m not sure if this has already been said. Second, I am from a different jurisdiction. A different country even (Canada), but a lot of the same rules apply.

Substitutional service is given in situations where the person being served is missing, evading service, or whose location isn’t known to anybody.

If you say they served you personally, that should be the end of it. The case begins, and they don’t get to win by default anymore (default judgment).

But then you say they served you substitutionally via a friend? So what you need to do is draw up an affidavit for your friend to swear saying that your friend was never served and is not aware of any documents in his possession that were meant for you.

That’ll be a good start.

Although this will probably get buried in the bottom somewhere.

Leave a Reply to Denfro Licious Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...