Court Ruling May Narrow Section 230 Protection

from the exempt-exemptions dept

The government’s attempts to regulate the internet are almost always misguided, but section 230 of the Communications Decency Act stands out as a rare instance of foresight, as it specifies that website proprietors aren’t, in general, legally liable for content posted by users. As more and more sites are built on user-generated content, this protection has only grown in importance. However, a decision handed down today by the Ninth Circuit may narrow section 230 protection (via Above The Law) to some extent. At issue is whether the site is on the hook for ads posted by its users that violate the Fair Housing Act by specifying the race and gender of the desired roommate. If you’ll recall, Craigslist faced the exact same issue, but was cleared, so you might think that the same would apply in here. However, in this case, the court ruled that the site is not necessarily protected because it provides a form that specifically invites users to fill out a potentially illegal roommate preference. The court reasoned, by analogy, that a hypothetical site called would not warrant protection if it specifically asked that its users furnish defamatory information on individuals. However, the court did say that could not be held liable for comments on the site that were separate from the forms it offered to users. It’s still not clear what’s going to happen here, or what this means for other sites that depend on section 230 immunity, though it would seem to have little effect on most sites that simply have an open comments section. As for, it’s likely it will try to avoid the problem by letting its users post free-form roommate ads, so that it’s not suggesting anything illegal.

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 “Court Ruling May Narrow Section 230 Protection”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Anonymous Coward says:

Race is questionable but gender is a reasonable deal-breaker.
Single women just out of their parents house might not want to bunk with a bunch of men they don’t know, not sure why it would be illegal to say ‘single woman seeking single women roomates’?
Stupid laws going to far to protect and restrict something that doesn’t need to be limited or guarded against.

Anonymous Coward says:

Site Name Also a Consideration?

The court reasoned, by analogy, that a hypothetical site called would not warrant protection if it specifically asked that its users furnish defamatory information on individuals.

So, by its analogy, is the court also suggesting that the very name of a site, such as, figures into whether it warrants protection?

Chris says:

...stupid courts telling me I cant hate people.

So sick and tired of people telling me that I can’t hate people. I’m by no means racist, but certain races do have tendencies to follow their cultural backgrounds. So If I’m a Asian guy and say I only wish to live with Asian people, because I don’t want to be FORCED by the federal government to HAVE TO ACCEPT someone of a different race, then it should be my right to do so. Simply by saying I don’t want Hispanics or blacks or whites can help me cut out on HAVING to interview people I know I’m almost 75% sure I wouldn’t want to live with. If in this hypothetical situation I’m to assume that they’re either in a gang, some stupid wanna be rapper, or a punk stoner, then I save myself the hassle. Stereotypes exist for a reason, not because everyone in the worlds ignorant. Besides last I checked only my landlord has to accept the fair housing regulations. Once he signs the lease over to me and allows me to sublet to anyone I choose, it’s of my prerogative to discriminate as much as I want because my credit’s on the line, no one else’s.

figures says:

It figures. . .

Quite simply, people looking for a roommate are looking for someone that they will get along with and should be exempt from the fair housing act, however landlords who are looking for tennants should still be required to abide by the law.

By that logic any site that allows a person to post for a roommate/housemate should be able to gather whatever information that will help find a compatiable person to share housing. Any landlord caught using the site to get around the fair housing act should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Lastly,, or for that matter many of the sites out there for finding housing/roomates, simply lack usability and are overcomplicated. These sites ask for login information and initial communications are only available through their site (not to one’s e-mail). That and there are too many different sites basiclly offering the same service in different unusable ways. Personally I use CL, but even CL is limited to the people who use it/know about it, like any other site out there.

Gary says:

Looking for a roommate?

The problem with this type of ruling is that it assumes that White Males are deliberately trying to keep (insert minority here) from getting fair treatment. While there is a certainly reason to have a fair housing standard to prevent this from happening, it doesn’t apply here. Instead of making it easier for a minority to find a place to live, this makes it harder. The reason that a white guy wants a white guy for a roommate is often cultural. Is it a huge surprise that most black guys are going to want a black guy as a roommate for the same reason? Imagine if you’re a Korean Female about 40 years old looking for a similar roommate. If all the gender, race and age criteria are excluded, think about how many calls or visits you’d have to make to find the situation you are looking for. There will always be some idiot posting for “No (insert racial slur here)” but that is not reason enough to legislate against stating you are looking for specific age, race, sex or religious types.

Add Your Comment

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

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...