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
They're trying to make straight people get more gay roommates, whether forced or accidentally (because they weren't allowed to ask), and they're hoping for conversions.
I've gotta ask... Was "coroner" a typo or a pun?
Either way - LOL! ;-P
No typo.
Just wait for more lawsuits against on-line dating / match making services. There’s one that advertises on TV a lot, which have only opposite sex couples featured talking about how they met via that web site. I expect a lawsuit in Massachusetts since it’s clearly discrimination because same-sex marriage is legal there.
There is a slippery slope but some in the gay community want to deny there is a slippery slope.
I long ago stopped saying "That's ridiculous, the government would never do that." I was proven wrong too many times.
Great. How convenient for all concerned.
Ahmmmm, ZOTee's might take issue with you there...
“Sites like Free Republic have safe harbor because we as the posters have 100% control over the content we post.”
The latest dust up and purge of Rudy backers may contradict that.
I disagree with the 9th circus. There is no substantive differenced between providing check boxes and providing for free form input. In either case the poster is responsible for the data.
They that "unlawful information" is being exchanged or transmitted.
What percisely is the "unlawful information"?
Information that a particular individual is interested in finding a roommate of a particular race, religion, or any other preference?
Those individuals have ever right to have those preferences.
If other individuals voluntarily provide such information so that they can find a roommate, the US government has no business interfering with them.
I would even expect that gay rights activists would consider this to be governmental discrimination against them, though homosexuality isn't a Constitutionally protected right, so that argument isn't particularly sound.
Fortunately, it's the Ninth Circuit, so the chances of survival are reasonably remote.
>They’re trying to make straight people get more gay roommates, whether forced or accidentally (because they weren’t allowed to ask), and they’re hoping for conversions.<
Conversions to natural fertilizer sounds perfect to me.
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.