"Fair" Housing Lawsuit Has Been
Dismissed
Update:
This case has been dismissed by
the US District Court in Chicago,
as of November 14, 2006.
We're pleased the Court
agreed that online service
providers like craigslist
should not be held liable as
"publishers" of content
submitted by their users, and
view this outcome as a win for the
general public's ability to
self-publish content (such as free
classified ads) on the internet.
Just as importantly, this ruling is
a victory for fair housing in the
city of Chicago, since this
misguided suit sought to force
craigslist to regress to ineffective
and intrusive "horse and buggy"
technologies, which would have
resulted in a big step backward
for fair housing from the
industry-leading standard that
craigslist users have set through
fair housing education and
community self-moderation.
Summary:
A group of lawyers is suing
craigslist over a handful of
allegedly discriminatory housing
ads posted by our users,
ignoring the fact that craigslist is
not a publisher, but rather a
community-moderated commons
run by and for its users, who
self-publish and manage their
own ads and use a flagging
system to police the site. These
lawyers demand that we impose
ill-conceived, mistake-prone, and
potentially illegal controls on the
craigslist community, which if
adopted would actually reduce
fair housing opportunity, while
eroding important free speech
and privacy rights. In reality, the
craigslist community already
excels at ensuring equal
opportunity housing, and
continues to improve in this
regard, earning praise from fair
housing groups. This lawsuit will
likely be dismissed as
groundless, but more importantly
the craigslist community will be
recognized for its exemplary
record in promoting fair housing
for all, while fully respecting each
person's constitutional right to
free speech and free association.
Background: (about craigslist)
The Chicago Lawyers Committee
for Civil Rights Under Law is
suing craigslist for 100 allegedly
discriminatory ads posted by our
Chicago users in a 6 month
period, out of 200,000 housing
ads submitted to
chicago.craigslist.org in that
timeframe. While craigslist takes
fair housing issues very
seriously, and we want to do
everything we can to assist our
users in promoting fair housing
for everyone, the 100 ads cited
were a little surprising. Some
were roommate ads involving
constitutionally protected speech
and the right to free association,
such as "prefer christian
roommate", or were ads
containing incidental and
harmless remarks such as "near
St Gertrude's church," and
"Buddhist temple nearby."..
Although in all likelihood this suit
will be dismissed on the grounds
that internet sites can not legally
be held liable for content posted
by users, craigslist has no need
to hide behind this
well-established
immunity...Discriminatory
postings are exceedingly
uncommon, and those few that
do reach the site are typically
removed quickly by our users
through the flagging system that
accompanies each ad...
Though possibly well-intentioned,
this lawsuit ignores the essential
nature of craigslist, demanding
that we cease treating our users
with trust and respect, and
instead impose inappropriate,
mistake-prone, and generally
counter-productive centralized
controls (such as manual review
by our staff of the nearly 2 million
free housing ads of unlimited
length posted each month, a
volume of ads greater than that
received by all US newspapers
combined), controls which would
actually be less effective in
catching discriminatory ads than
what we have in place currently...
Overreaching further, the suit
demands that craigslist
proactively volunteer personal
information about posters who
post a discriminatory preference
(e.g. "church next door") to
regulatory authorities for
prosecution, without subpoena or
warrant -- clearly a violation of
privacy rights, this demand may
actually run counter to federal
law governing the handling of
user information...
Jim Buckmaster
CEO, craigslist
http://www.craigslist.org/about/fair.
housing.html
Dismissed
Update:
This case has been dismissed by
the US District Court in Chicago,
as of November 14, 2006.
We're pleased the Court
agreed that online service
providers like craigslist
should not be held liable as
"publishers" of content
submitted by their users, and
view this outcome as a win for the
general public's ability to
self-publish content (such as free
classified ads) on the internet.
Just as importantly, this ruling is
a victory for fair housing in the
city of Chicago, since this
misguided suit sought to force
craigslist to regress to ineffective
and intrusive "horse and buggy"
technologies, which would have
resulted in a big step backward
for fair housing from the
industry-leading standard that
craigslist users have set through
fair housing education and
community self-moderation.
Summary:
A group of lawyers is suing
craigslist over a handful of
allegedly discriminatory housing
ads posted by our users,
ignoring the fact that craigslist is
not a publisher, but rather a
community-moderated commons
run by and for its users, who
self-publish and manage their
own ads and use a flagging
system to police the site. These
lawyers demand that we impose
ill-conceived, mistake-prone, and
potentially illegal controls on the
craigslist community, which if
adopted would actually reduce
fair housing opportunity, while
eroding important free speech
and privacy rights. In reality, the
craigslist community already
excels at ensuring equal
opportunity housing, and
continues to improve in this
regard, earning praise from fair
housing groups. This lawsuit will
likely be dismissed as
groundless, but more importantly
the craigslist community will be
recognized for its exemplary
record in promoting fair housing
for all, while fully respecting each
person's constitutional right to
free speech and free association.
Background: (about craigslist)
The Chicago Lawyers Committee
for Civil Rights Under Law is
suing craigslist for 100 allegedly
discriminatory ads posted by our
Chicago users in a 6 month
period, out of 200,000 housing
ads submitted to
chicago.craigslist.org in that
timeframe. While craigslist takes
fair housing issues very
seriously, and we want to do
everything we can to assist our
users in promoting fair housing
for everyone, the 100 ads cited
were a little surprising. Some
were roommate ads involving
constitutionally protected speech
and the right to free association,
such as "prefer christian
roommate", or were ads
containing incidental and
harmless remarks such as "near
St Gertrude's church," and
"Buddhist temple nearby."..
Although in all likelihood this suit
will be dismissed on the grounds
that internet sites can not legally
be held liable for content posted
by users, craigslist has no need
to hide behind this
well-established
immunity...Discriminatory
postings are exceedingly
uncommon, and those few that
do reach the site are typically
removed quickly by our users
through the flagging system that
accompanies each ad...
Though possibly well-intentioned,
this lawsuit ignores the essential
nature of craigslist, demanding
that we cease treating our users
with trust and respect, and
instead impose inappropriate,
mistake-prone, and generally
counter-productive centralized
controls (such as manual review
by our staff of the nearly 2 million
free housing ads of unlimited
length posted each month, a
volume of ads greater than that
received by all US newspapers
combined), controls which would
actually be less effective in
catching discriminatory ads than
what we have in place currently...
Overreaching further, the suit
demands that craigslist
proactively volunteer personal
information about posters who
post a discriminatory preference
(e.g. "church next door") to
regulatory authorities for
prosecution, without subpoena or
warrant -- clearly a violation of
privacy rights, this demand may
actually run counter to federal
law governing the handling of
user information...
Jim Buckmaster
CEO, craigslist
http://www.craigslist.org/about/fair.
housing.html
| Parent to Parent Message Boards GreatSchools, Inc. says I'm not allowed to use their content to discuss on the Internet the possibility that school district attorneys use parent message boards to undermine parents suing schools |
| Free Speech |
Schuster v. The Fresno Bee
by David Ardia
Threat type: Subpoena
Date: 01/23/2008
Party Issuing Threat: Larissa Schuster
Party Receiving Threat:The Fresno
Bee
Type of Threatening Party: Individual
Status:Concluded
Disposition:Dismissed
A defense attorney for Larissa
Schuster, who was convicted of
murder, subpoenaed The Fresno Bee
seeking the Internet protocol
addresses and dates of access for all
users of the paper's website and blog
during the period surrounding the time
of his client's trial to determine
whether jurors violated a judge's order
barring them from reading online news
stories about the case before they
reached a verdict.
The subpoena, which was sent to the
"Custodian of Records" at The Fresno
Bee, sought IP addresses and dates
of access for all users of
www.fresnobee.com, the paper's main
website, www.fresnobeehive.com, the
paper's blog, and "any other internet
site associated with The Fresno Bee."
Betsy Lumbye, executive editor and
senior vice president of The Fresno
Bee, stated that the newspaper would
not voluntarily turn over the IP address
data of its users.
The idea that we'd violate readers'
privacy by digging up that kind of
information and disclosing it is
preposterous," she said. "We would
fight it tooth and nail and I'm confident
we'd prevail.
On February 4, 2008, a Fresno
County judge quashed the subpoena,
concluding that Schuster's lawyer had
not provided compelling reasons to
force The Bee to turn over the
information and characterizing the
subpoena as "a fishing expedition."
Court Type:State
Location of Filing/Threat:
California Court Name:
Superior Court of California, County of
Fresno
Case Number:F03904715-0
Legal Counsel for Sending/Suing
Party:
Roger T. Nuttall (Nuttall & Coleman)
CaliforniaWeb Sites Involved:
http://www.fresnobee.com
http://www.fresnobeehive.com
by David Ardia
Threat type: Subpoena
Date: 01/23/2008
Party Issuing Threat: Larissa Schuster
Party Receiving Threat:The Fresno
Bee
Type of Threatening Party: Individual
Status:Concluded
Disposition:Dismissed
A defense attorney for Larissa
Schuster, who was convicted of
murder, subpoenaed The Fresno Bee
seeking the Internet protocol
addresses and dates of access for all
users of the paper's website and blog
during the period surrounding the time
of his client's trial to determine
whether jurors violated a judge's order
barring them from reading online news
stories about the case before they
reached a verdict.
The subpoena, which was sent to the
"Custodian of Records" at The Fresno
Bee, sought IP addresses and dates
of access for all users of
www.fresnobee.com, the paper's main
website, www.fresnobeehive.com, the
paper's blog, and "any other internet
site associated with The Fresno Bee."
Betsy Lumbye, executive editor and
senior vice president of The Fresno
Bee, stated that the newspaper would
not voluntarily turn over the IP address
data of its users.
The idea that we'd violate readers'
privacy by digging up that kind of
information and disclosing it is
preposterous," she said. "We would
fight it tooth and nail and I'm confident
we'd prevail.
On February 4, 2008, a Fresno
County judge quashed the subpoena,
concluding that Schuster's lawyer had
not provided compelling reasons to
force The Bee to turn over the
information and characterizing the
subpoena as "a fishing expedition."
Court Type:State
Location of Filing/Threat:
California Court Name:
Superior Court of California, County of
Fresno
Case Number:F03904715-0
Legal Counsel for Sending/Suing
Party:
Roger T. Nuttall (Nuttall & Coleman)
CaliforniaWeb Sites Involved:
http://www.fresnobee.com
http://www.fresnobeehive.com
Bally Total Fitness v. Faber
Posted June 24th, 2008 by Arthur
Bright
LawsuitDate: 02/23/1998 k
Party Issuing Threat:
Bally Total Fitness Holding Corp.
Party Receiving Threat:
Andrew S. Faber
Type of Threatening Party:
Organization
Type of Threatened Party:
Individual
In February 1998, Bally Total Fitness
sued Andrew Faber, a former Bally
customer who created a website
entitled BallySucks (now defunct),
which was dedicated to collecting
complaints about Bally's health club
business and included modified
versions of Bally's trademarks with the
word "sucks" across them. The
complaint alleged trademark
infringement, trademark dilution, and
unfair competition.
Bally moved for a temporary
restraining order against Faber to
force him to take down the website, but
the court denied Bally's motion in April
1998. In October 1998, Bally moved
for summary judgment on its claims.
The court again rejected the motion,
and instead ordered Faber to bring a
motion for summary judgment. Faber
so moved, and the court granted the
motion in December 1998.
The court found that Faber's "Bally
sucks" site promoted separate, distinct
"goods" from Bally's services and
would not confuse reasonable
consumers. Further, the court said that
even if the two "goods" had been
related, the trademark infringement
balancing test from AMF Inc. v.
Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341,
348-49 (9th Cir. 1979) weighed heavily
in favor of Faber.
Following the grant of summary
judgment, Bally appealed to the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals. However, on
June 13, 2000, the appeal was
dismissed by stipulation of the parties.
Court and Attorney InformationCourt
Type:
FederalLocation of Filing/Threat:
California Court Name:
United States District Court for the
Central District of CaliforniaCase
Number:
2:98-cv-01278 (trial); 99-55345
(appeal)Legal Counsel for
Sending/Suing Party:
A. Sidney Katz, Eric D. Cohen, Eric E.
Cohen, Julie A. Katz (Welsh & Katz);
David Huebner (Coudert Brothers);
Glenn W. Trost (White and Case LLP)
Legal Counsel for
Receiving/Defending Party:
Gary P. Simonian (Keats McFarland
and Wilson); Kirk N. Sullivan, Jody
Damon Angel (Moore Winter Skebba &
McLennan)
Posted June 24th, 2008 by Arthur
Bright
LawsuitDate: 02/23/1998 k
Party Issuing Threat:
Bally Total Fitness Holding Corp.
Party Receiving Threat:
Andrew S. Faber
Type of Threatening Party:
Organization
Type of Threatened Party:
Individual
In February 1998, Bally Total Fitness
sued Andrew Faber, a former Bally
customer who created a website
entitled BallySucks (now defunct),
which was dedicated to collecting
complaints about Bally's health club
business and included modified
versions of Bally's trademarks with the
word "sucks" across them. The
complaint alleged trademark
infringement, trademark dilution, and
unfair competition.
Bally moved for a temporary
restraining order against Faber to
force him to take down the website, but
the court denied Bally's motion in April
1998. In October 1998, Bally moved
for summary judgment on its claims.
The court again rejected the motion,
and instead ordered Faber to bring a
motion for summary judgment. Faber
so moved, and the court granted the
motion in December 1998.
The court found that Faber's "Bally
sucks" site promoted separate, distinct
"goods" from Bally's services and
would not confuse reasonable
consumers. Further, the court said that
even if the two "goods" had been
related, the trademark infringement
balancing test from AMF Inc. v.
Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341,
348-49 (9th Cir. 1979) weighed heavily
in favor of Faber.
Following the grant of summary
judgment, Bally appealed to the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals. However, on
June 13, 2000, the appeal was
dismissed by stipulation of the parties.
Court and Attorney InformationCourt
Type:
FederalLocation of Filing/Threat:
California Court Name:
United States District Court for the
Central District of CaliforniaCase
Number:
2:98-cv-01278 (trial); 99-55345
(appeal)Legal Counsel for
Sending/Suing Party:
A. Sidney Katz, Eric D. Cohen, Eric E.
Cohen, Julie A. Katz (Welsh & Katz);
David Huebner (Coudert Brothers);
Glenn W. Trost (White and Case LLP)
Legal Counsel for
Receiving/Defending Party:
Gary P. Simonian (Keats McFarland
and Wilson); Kirk N. Sullivan, Jody
Damon Angel (Moore Winter Skebba &
McLennan)
In March 2000, AnswerThink, a
business and technology
consulting firm, fired Gregory P.
Hackett for allegedly criticizing the
company on a Yahoo! forum and
sued him for breach of contract,
breach of fiduciary duty and
loyalty, and defamation in Florida
federal court.
AnswerThink fired and sued
Hackett after subpoenaing Yahoo!
and learning Hackett's identity
during a related lawsuit,
AnswerThink Consulting Group v.
Doe. In that lawsuit, AnswerThink
sued Hackett and several others
as John Does for defamation.
Hackett and AnswerThink settled
both cases in July 2000.
In a related matter, Hackett sued
Yahoo! in California federal court
in May 2000 for violating his
privacy when it complied with
AnswerThink's subpoena. Hackett
and Yahoo! settled in August
2000.
| Talking to Kids Homework Book Boondoggle? Phonics Spanking Nat'l Board Certif Ordinary People Writing Sample |
| BLOGS |
| Defamation Suit |
| SAN DIEGO EDUCATION REPORT |