Craigslist under legal scrutiny
The group of lawyers scanned Craigslist sites of various cities to find that some of its users posted ads that included terms such as "no kids allowed" or "no minorities." Because such ads are illegal in newspapers and on newspaper websites, the group argues that they cannot be published on websites independent of newspapers.
A lawyer for the group said, "We would like Craigslist to be under the same obligations and resulting factors as all other publishers, be they newspapers or magazines, that they do what is necessary and appropriate to make sure that classified ads comply with the Fair Housing Act."
Representatives of Craigslist argue that the very nature of the site distinguishes it from newspapers and that its users which form a community regularly report discriminatory ads with the click of a mouse.
CEO of Craigslist, Jim Buckmaster highlighted the differences between "old" and "new" media saying, "Craigslist is absolutely a different animal. It's a user-controlled commons where users submit, at this point, eight million ads of unlimited length. So when the lawyers group says they want Craigslist treated exactly as if it were a newspaper, on the face of it, that doesn't make any sense."
Source: New York Times
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Craigslist under legal scrutiny.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.editorsweblog.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/878
In the case of Bluffton Today, it means that editors have some key roles to play:
a) facilitating community involvement
b) finding real stories amidst the community chatter
c) selected and promoting important issues/posts raised by the community
d) keeping reporters and staffers involved with the community
Let me just soapbox and say, from my perspective, one of the interesting successes of the BT project has been the level of transparency and accessibility of the editorial staff. I think that will help the publication gain trust in the community.
I am so sick of reading journalists hype GETLOCALNEWS and it's "flagship" site Benicianews.com as citizen journalism. Don't any of you look at the site and evaluate it? It's ugly, the design is horrible, it has more ads than the las vegas strip, it has no editorial controls, any one with a half-baked notion that aliens are planning an invasion can capture the lead spo, the stories are rubbish, the site hosts a message board that encourages people to anonymously slander of every citizen in town. Teenagers are in therapy in the town because of the rumors that are spread about them on BEnicianews.com. It's a disservice to the community and most people here will be glad if it fails. Frankly, I'm surprised they've avoided lawsuits for slander. Just because people exercize free speech on the site doesn't mean it's making a contribution to news. Just because it's new and encourages participation doesn't mean it's good. If you lived in benicia, you'd know what I mean.
This is such shoddy reporting by the NYT I can't even believe it.
To win this suit, the Chicago lawyers must prove that Craiglist does not enjoy a shield of immunity from the Communications Decency Act. This is a key fact of the case, and Julie Bosman didn't bother to mention it at all.
At least when the AP ran the story, they quoted a professor (Jennifer Rothman) from Wash U, who, by the way, called the case, "a complete nonstarter." Why didn't Bosman bother to call the ACLU, Public Citizen, EFF, or numerous other experts in cyberlaw who would have also dismissed the case?
Hmmm... WHY IS THAT? Why would the NYT try to boost the prospects of this case in the court of public opinion (despites is obvious fundamental flaw). Why could that be? Could it be a reflection of their own fear of Craigslist and all that freedom for (gasp) anyone to say what they want on the Internet?
Or perhaps it's yet another example of an ill-informed (at best) or lazy (at worst) reporter covering a sensational yet meritless lawsuit.