Comments

Ridiculous lawsuit. Sue the advertisers themselves. Aren't we all adults here? (I've pretty much had enough of the Frivolous American Lawsuit Syndrome.)

"Are we willing to allow some things we find repugnant to happen, in order to allow the frictionless, inexpensive communication the Internet enables?"

Yes. I'm also willing to put up with spam, pornography, anonymous negativity and venom, and a number of other things that make being on the internet slightly annoying because the good and benefit outweighs the bad and annoying for me.

Posted by Joshua Blankenship at February 24, 2006 4:37 PM

I am afraid we should let it occur (although lawsuits should be brought against the individuals). But I hope that the market will prevail and severly punish those who choose to do so.

Posted by S. Anthony Iannarino at February 24, 2006 5:03 PM

IMHO, the channel shouldn't matter: newspaper, radio, TV, internet, phonebook, etc. If the law holds one liable for such ads, it must hold all liable. How can it be any other way?

I'd say lean toward making the advertiser liable and the channel free of responsibility. If US law holds newspapers liable, then they should be freed of that liability.

If that is the case, then the channel will have some responsibility to id its clients (privacy bells going off) in case of discriminatory advertising practices. Now it gets complicated, but without that id, any discrimination law becomes completely unenforceable.

Posted by Jeff at February 24, 2006 5:03 PM

Tom -- The word that strikes me here is "frictionless." Craigslist is great for removing the technical friction that inhibits communication in the traditional classifieds: There's no ad rep to talk to, you can write your ad longer or shorter, you can include the most graphic sexual language if you like, it goes live instantly, and so on. But it does create a sort of social friction, as the cited racist examples show, and as any inadvertent reader of Craigslist flame-wars quickly understands.

People say things under cover of Internet anonymity that they never would face to face. (This isn't just an Internet phenomenon; call center operators often receive abuse from people who would never say such things face to face in a shop.) This is a social cost - or a source of social friction - that seems to be inherent in the medium.

As your post suggests, the challenge is to compare the technical frictionlessness (plus social benefits) of online communication with the social frictions, which range from minor (Usenet flame wars) to major (untraceable child pornography). My own opinion is that the social costs are worth it, given the benefits.

Craigslist is guiltless here, especially because it's self-policing and because Craig Newmark himself is so diligent in fighting the evil side effects that accompany technical frictionlessness.

Posted by Tim Walker at February 24, 2006 5:05 PM

Steve, this is a tricky question. Should Craiglist be sued ?

1) Craiglist is just a content provider
2) A search engine pulls results and displays them
3) A user creates the content (albiet bad for some) on craiglist

So who needs to be sued ?? IMHO the user should be ID'ed and sued. AFter all Craiglist has taken away approx 20-28% (last that I read !!) revenue away from the Ad revenue of MSM.

"the channel shouldn't matter: newspaper, radio, TV, internet, phonebook, etc. If the law holds one liable for such ads, it must hold all liable. How can it be any other way?"

Ok this brings us back to the outer edge like services like Ediogo and noodle etc. I can adverstise on my blog, will the same rules apply ? I can sale whatever I want correct ? how will this work ?? Will the other service like ediogo and noodle also be liable ??

Posted by /pd at February 24, 2006 6:53 PM

Freedom's freedom. Freedom of speech isn't limited to our opinions. It's freedom of speech for everyone. Sometimes that includes opinions we don't like. We all need to get used to hearing them and addressing them.

It's called being an adult.

Posted by Zane at February 24, 2006 7:54 PM

This reminds me of an incident in India back in 2004 where the CEO of bazee.com (India's e-bay) was arrested because someone was auctioning sexually explicit material on his site.

http://news.delhisite.com/allindianews.asp?newsdate=20041218&record=11

Suing Craig list won’t solve the problem. That will send a very wrong message to future "Craig list’s" and we (Internet users) will suffer in the long run.

We can't sue the guy who posted it either. What if someone outside the US had posted it? (As weird as it may sound for Craig list, there is still a chance that someone could do it, right?...It's the Internet. No limits.) .

So in my opinion, we got to make peace with it. Else we risk becoming like China with Internet policing everywhere.

Part of the reason we have to make peace with "things we find repugnant" on the Internet is that we just are not at a stage where we can really do something about it in an efficient manner.

Posted by Nithin at February 24, 2006 8:39 PM

I don't know enough about Craig list to be able to really comment.

Do they have any published Values set anywhere about things like this? i.e. what they believe in

Posted by PaulH at February 25, 2006 4:19 AM

Very interesting observation Steve. Perhaps we could look at it another way. Would Craigslist, as a 'town squre' be responsible if child pornography was advertised on their site? The question becomes less of a black and white (no pun intended) issue when we consider the fine lines of a host's responsibility.

Freedom of speech has limitations. There are standards to consider in any speech carried by mass media players. For example, network television in the US is not allowed (by order of the FCC) to use certain language (FCUK) or expression (full frontal nudity). There are limitations to our freedom of speech when that speech is carried by a national (or international) broadcaster.

Obviously, Craigslist cannot pre-screen the millions of classified listings that are posted on the site. But what action should they take when a post is reported to them as being offensive?

Continuing to host discriminatory ads on Craigslist after such ads are brought to their attention might be similar to a CEO not taking action when an incidence of sexual discrimination is brought to their office.

The carrier might be liable if they didn't take action when such discriminatory material was reported to them.

Great post!

Posted by Tom O'Leary at February 25, 2006 7:25 AM

It's an interesting debate - whether the host or the advertiser is responsible. An issue that's come up in the UK this weekend is the selling of fake goods on eBay - so should we hold them responsible if someone sells fake goods on their site?

I strongly believe in the principles of personal liberty and responsibility. My instinct is: if an internet advertiser breaks the law, you should go for the advertiser and not the provider of the forum.

HOWEVER, that provider cannot simply say, "I'm just the host." They must have clear rules about what is and isn't acceptable (which are at least the legal minimum); must have robust procedures for random checking content; must have robust procedures for promptly withdrawing offending material; must have robust procedures for checking advertisers are bona fide and are not serial offenders. They've got to be able to demonstrate that they're trying to run a decent shop. If they are, I'd like to see them as well as any relevant authorities take direct action against the offenders.

Posted by MarkJF at February 25, 2006 8:46 AM

I can't believe this lawsuit. People get upset when their rights are violated with censorship issues but then when people are given freedom to write freely the host is sued? Craigslist is providing a service to the community. Craigslist has a disclaimer for all those posting. People who aim at the messenger instead of the one sending the message are making it difficult for all of us to use the service.

Posted by Chithra Durgam at February 25, 2006 9:12 AM

This case shows the importance of focusing on a clear objective or dimension of an issue when discussing it. Here we have two dimensions:
1. the legislation that bans discrimination on the basis of race, gender, social or ethnic origin and a few other things.
2. the responsibility of a publication whether it is online or not about content.

Interesting question is: what made dimension 1 necessary? And aside from giving ourselves good conscience by having anti-discrimination laws or affirmative action laws, what are we doing to transform mentalities, to convince people that the values of equality of rights and opportunities are worth supporting?

As far as the responsibility of the publication is concerned, I believe as long as it is not complete indifference for what is being published, a publication should not be held accountable for content it does not produce. The responsibility of content belong to the creator of content, for utlimately, if we are interested in changing beliefs about discrimination, we have to direct feedback (punishment by law in this case) to the "producers" of undesired behavior. It's a bit like environmental pollution: polluters should bear the cost of pollution, not all tax payers.

At the end of the day this boils down to political philosophy, to the vision one has about the Polis or the Union. How do Americans build a Better Union together? Even better: how do American build a WOW Union for the future?

Posted by alex at February 25, 2006 9:22 AM

The BIG Craigslist story to me is in this months Details magazine - people using the site to quickly hookup for wild sensual adventure - suddenly STD's may be more like it though - although it is an interesting Internet new dynamic.

Posted by Sean at February 25, 2006 10:54 AM

How unfortunate, that people are suing a place like Craigslist of all things. From all of the interviews I've read with the founder of Craigslist, he is trying to provide a service, not make a profit.
Comparing Craigslist to any newspaper or paid classified ad service does not compare, there is no price to posting a Craigslist ad, and no filter, unlike your local newspaper, which has a paid editor to filter and approve content. It is clear that content on these community-based sites is filtered and flagged by the community.
Holding those that merely enable and host community-generated content such as MySpace, Digg, Fark, Craigslist, and Wikipedia responsible for this content will have a negative effect on the things that the internet is capable of, and we can say goodbye to the partipation economy.

Posted by Chris at February 25, 2006 11:20 AM

I agree Chris, in that unlike MSM publications, Craigslist might not have an Editor-in-Chief with discretion to decide what content is aired in the 'publication'. This is part of the excitement of social applications which give users, rather than publishers control of content creation. But ultimately, isn't the owner of the space responsible for what occurs in that space?

WHEN the host site (owner of the space) becomes aware of a controversial or, in this case, discriminatory posting - should they not take action based on community/cultural/societal standards? Perhaps approaching the advertiser and stating that, due to community standards, rewording is necessary to keep the post active?

What if the post in question was defamatory or slanderous to your family? Wouldn't you expect the site to take some action to approach the content creator? Wouldn't you expect the site to remove libelous content if you or your family or your family's business was the subject of such content? Free speech, unchecked, can have unsavoury consequences. That's why certain standards are set within societies that enjoy free speech. It has never been carte blanche.

Such sites provide a forum (a public space) to speak freely. But don't purveyors of public spaces need to control the space at times? Don't certain standards need to be set and adhered to? Do we really want anarchy?

I don't believe that having certain standards in a user-controlled forum will destroy the participation model of the Internet. It will only weed out unacceptable content that does little to add value to it. Responsibility is always required in such user-controled space.

I believe that there is a larger grey smudge on this issue than we might initially see.

Posted by Tom O'Leary at February 25, 2006 12:32 PM

One poster above hinted at what I'm going to say, but I'm going one step further.

People don't like each other - for stupid reasons. Regardless, it's human nature. The people bringing about the lawsuits aren't any better.

You don't like what someone says... sue them.

Yes, there is a bigger problem, but it's obvious that the person suing is not suing because of the content, or to change the world. They're tryng to change their bank account, and it's much more profitable to do it to craigslist than it is one short-sighted, racist person (or even a vast minority).

We, as a society, need to face facts. There are bad people out there, and laws won't change their minds... somewhat frivolous lawsuits only galvanize them. We will not live in perfect harmony, no matter how much we dream of it. There will always be a reason to discriminate whether it's skin color, income or hair color.

I'm not saying that the people who posted those ads on craigslist should be protected, but craigslist should be. I would love to see a workable system where those who file lawsuits must pay the costs of defending that lawsuit if they lose. This would change things dramatically.

Posted by Bill at February 25, 2006 12:44 PM

This cartoon probably explains the motivation behind this shocking action against craigslist!

http://www.gapingvoid.com/Moveable_Type/archives/002302.html

Posted by Clive at February 25, 2006 6:22 PM

Bill et al who share his sentiment. There is no denying that our society is driven by greed, and that suing each other has become an all-too-common channel to feed the greed.

I wrote a short piece back in the 1980s suggesting how legislating against racism won't actually stop it - for exactly the reasons that Bill eludes to.

But, legal protections are necessary within a society to prevent injustice (i.e. discrimination, defamation, etc.). We simply should stop making those protections profitable to the degree that they motivate us to pursue them in the courts when the harm is, in perspective, not so great.

Posted by Tom O'Leary at February 25, 2006 11:35 PM

I think most people would agree that certains protections are needed and that purveyors of public spaces need to control the space. But we all know the internet is not like a premeditated act such as publishing a book or a newspaper where content can be vetted or checked beforehand and where it is reasonable to assume that any mis-deed is therefore either deliberate or negligent.

How do Craiglist or eBay or any chatroom or blog (including this one) ensure they don't inadvertantly publish something illegal or defamatory? The implication is that they have to pre-vet everything, which is going to increase the costs and timescales the internet has done so much to cut. To my mind, action should be taken against the writer of the offending piece and not the provider of the forum, just so long as that provider has proven methods for picking up, removing and (where possible) rectifying their users' abuses.

It's rather like libel laws: they don't stop libel but they do provide a remedy. Remember too, libel laws are often aimed at the publisher (deep pockets) rather than the writer (average Joe Smith). Maybe what this debate will do is to bring the issue of personal accountability more to the fore.

Posted by MarkJF at February 26, 2006 2:52 AM

Mark. I don't think that pre-vetting is necessary. Pre-screening posts is not conducive to online community discussions. But, when a specific post comes to the attention of the site owner either through a flagged message or other reporting mechanism; then the site owner has an obligation to step up to the plate and make a decision. Like I mentioned earlier, it's like someone eventually walking into the CEOs office with a sexual discrimination allegation. At that point, the CEO can't turn a blind eye and hope that it goes away. They have to enact their authority when such information is put in front of them. That doesn't mean that the CEO needs to interview all staff members every day in an effort to prevent such behavior; but they have to set standards up front and take action when an allegation is made.

For online forums, that decision doesn't necessarily require censorship of speech on the site. Perhpas it is a notice on the site that says something to the effect that

"it has come to our attention that xyz post is considered offensive to certain members of our community. The post creator has been notified by our site. Posts on this site are not necessarily representative of the xyz site's views and any offensive material should be notified directly to the creator of the content..."

It would be as easy as taking anonymity away from posters on the site, requiring that a verifiable e-mail address, IP address and name are supplied by people using the site to post material.

Posted by Tom O'Leary at February 26, 2006 7:08 AM

"... society driven by greed ... " thats a bit heavy handed - perhaps many consumer markets are driven with greed as a factor. Craigslist as supporting "sleazy" sex hookups is in this months' Details magazine - they don't provide free online copy or I'd include it ... so Craiglists' 19 aren't free and clear innocents surfing le 'Net.

Society driven by inclusiveness and benevolence = what's known as the 'western world' - especially that clearly now we easily see how homocidal on a wide scale Islamofascism is including sect to sect heinous acts, genocidal history and new plans et al ... but it too will come to pass and people will learn to live well together for mutual gain.

Posted by Sean at February 26, 2006 10:07 AM

Tom - agreed. People sometimes assume that laws prevent crime ("It shouldn't be allowed...") but laws don't stop crime by themselves. Fraud, murder, burglary and speeding are all illegal but go on every day. What matters is how people and organisations react after a transgression or an offence has occured.

Posted by MarkJF at February 26, 2006 1:17 PM

Wonderful post Steve. I believe trust should always be where we start from but there will always be a few people to spoil it for the overwhelming majority. ‘Trust people first’ will always be my starting point. I rest easy that those who abuse trust have to answer to the person they see in the mirror. Simple as that.

Posted by Trevor Gay at February 26, 2006 6:09 PM

Point taken Sean. Perhaps a little over the top. I may be hippifying myself before the move to Bellingham (supposedly a hippy hangout). Society isn't driven by greed, but there are a lot of greedy people in our society, which accounts for the sue-happy mentality that causes our insurance rates to climb out of control and necessitates legal frameworks to protect us from any possible lawsuits when somebody slips on the footpath outside our door.

Posted by Tom O'Leary at February 26, 2006 9:02 PM

Rarely are problems solved by more regulations and laws. Craigs List, newspapers, television, and other channels should not have to burden themselves with enforcing laws and regulations for others. Its silly and a waste of economic potential.

Posted by Tom Kirkham at February 26, 2006 9:12 PM

Trust:2 to 3 % will abuse - "In Search" page???.

Freedom is not acchieved in stasis. If you infect a healthy organism with "weakened" viruses, you make it protected from the same virus.
This works in biology. To live with "some" stupid atittudes is vital to keep a healthy environment.
Where is the discussion? Where is the confrontaion?
No law suit!

Posted by Gerson Barbosa at February 27, 2006 8:55 AM

With all that I have said, and which in a theoretical context believe in - I want to make it clear that I am not in favor of anyone suing anyone unless real harm has been done.

One day in Alabama, my wife and I supported a new lunch/cafe in Montgomery. My wife ordered a bag of potato chips with her lunch. When we started eating, she put some chips in her mouth and immediately spit them out. Looking inside the bag, there were hundreds of dead ants (who got in somehow before the bag was sealed, or there was a tiny hole in the bag perhaps). Anyway, we told the young owner about it and paid for our lunch. Yes, we didn't even take the free lunch. Everything else was fine. Many would have made a big case out of it. Yea, my wife was queazy thinking about it, but it was a freak occurrence, and caused no harm.

In this case, an ad placed by an ignorant individual harms only themsleves, as they must suffer with their stupidity.

Posted by Tom O'Leary at February 27, 2006 11:55 AM

I agree 100% Tom O on the sue-happy "victim" world owes me a free lunch living culture - especially in parts of the USA. Agree with Trevor too on "trust people 1st" - though some culture and mind-sets make it risky to trust strangers that prefer to stay distant.

Have fun in B'ham - it is a wonderful liberal enclave - close to the 2010 winter Olympics also near Vancouver, BC.

viagra canadian pharmacy discount

Posted by Sean at February 27, 2006 1:10 PM

buy viagra generic online Of course Craigslist should be sued. They facilitated someone doing something illegal. Point.Blank.

If the ad was shown on TV or radio people would understand the media being sued as well. Can I buy a tv commercial during cartoons saying KIDS SHOULD HATE [racial epithets deleted--tp.com]? If I did should the tv station bear some of the responsibility? Anyone who doesn't understand why this suit is legitimate is part of the problem.

It's sad that people are screaming about freedom of speech but no one is talking about RESPONSIBILITY.

Craigslists has a responsibility to see to it that folks don't abuse others on their site. [And though we know the words were used as an example of what not to do, we feel a responsibilty for them not appearing on our site. Sorry for the deletion.--tp.com]

Posted by chartreuse at February 27, 2006 1:28 PM

'chartreuse'should be may be sued for using the N word and the S word whatever that is - public airwaves like TV have been regulated effectively for 55+ years - the 'Net is new enough that Craigslist nuance slips through.

Posted by Sean at February 27, 2006 2:29 PM

Now, should the TP company be sued because chartreuse slipped controversial slang into the blog mix? Who has the right to sue them? Can I, as a reader of the shameful shibboleth? Does it depend on the context? As part of a debate/discussion, should such language be accepted? Or is the word, as a word, enough to bring the sniffer dogs out? What if I hear such crass characterizations is a cafe? Can I sue the cafe owners for the offense?

Posted by Tom O'Leary at February 27, 2006 4:18 PM

The question, I repeat, is one of responsibility.
Should TP be responsible for my shameful conduct (and yes it was shameful)? Do they bear some responsibility?

Of course you do. And I'm a FAN of this site (it's on my blogroll) but if I am doing something which is illegal or offends the majority of readers then TP has to do something about it. Why? Because they have some responsibility for what goes on in their 'house'.

Does that mean they can/should be sued?

Of Course.

{btw, please don't ban me from the site. i was only trying to make a point. :)}

Posted by chartruese at February 27, 2006 6:27 PM

Sued for what, Chartruese? The Internet is an International network. Here in Ireland, we are allowed to curse freely on television and radio. So, does the Internet have to cater to the sensitivities of each individual in every culture in the world? There are cultures where discussion or debate about religion would not be tolerated, or open political debate for that matter. Should someone in China be able to ban my commentary about their system, and sue me because it upset them? Where is the line drawn - and who draws it? Standards of decency vary around the world. Whose standards apply? Objectively, if sensitivities to speech are allowed to dictate content, then surely we would accommodate even the most sensitive of individuals; which would affect the majority of content on the Internet today. Or is it just what you think - or I think - or Tom Peters thinks? Some cultures, based on their religious beliefs, don't recognize a woman's right to have a voice in society. Should we accommodate for that? Should they be able to sue if we don't?

Posted by Tom O'Leary at February 27, 2006 8:08 PM

You should be sued if you facillitate illegal activity on your site. Point. Blank.

If it's illegal in the country your site is based then the law applies.

I'm not being unreasonable. It's common sense.
In the real world it's the same way.

The suit against Craigslist is what happens when you have frictionless content. The creators of the applications which create them are ultimately going to have to take responsibility for what build (not that there is anything wrong with that.)

Posted by chartreuse at February 27, 2006 8:31 PM

A lot of funny things happen when you do business online. See what VISA and MC is doing.
http://www.marketingsherpa.com/1et/bestofweekly-02-27-06.htm

Jay, from Bangalore

Posted by Jayakumar Hariharan at February 27, 2006 11:06 PM

Just checking back in after a trip. Wow! What amazing debate and comments. This is what blogging is all about. Thanks for thinking.

Posted by Steve Yastrow at February 28, 2006 2:21 AM

chartreuse - doesn't it rather depend on what "facilitate" means? In the case of a TV or magasine ad, there is clear opportunity for the publisher to vet and pre-screen the advert. If it is offensive, then they have to take part of the responsibility for allowing it to go out.

The internet is a bit different and we need to re-think the rules. The site hosts are providing a more or less real-time forum which lets us as consumers benefit from reduced costs and timescales. Sometimes, someone will abuse that.

My view is that you should go to the root cause of the problem and in this environment you punish the party that caused the offence, not the site host who is providing a forum for 99.99% of the users to use properly and beneficially. (My caveat, as above, is provided the host has proper procedures to pick up abuses and isn't just allowing a free-for-all.)

Posted by Mark JF at February 28, 2006 6:22 AM

I'm not sure that language, in and of itself is illegal. The advertisers who used discriminatory criteria in their advertising (this is what the contention was, not the language) might be guilty of discriminatory practice.

- Should the phone company be held liable if their lines are used by someone harrassing someone else over their network? Or should the person actually using that network for those purposes by accountable? viagra without prescription

- What about somebody who uses a car to run over their ex-husband? Should the car maker be liable if their product is used to host a driver who executes such an act? Or should the driver who misused the product be accountable?

Furthermore, in this instance, Craigslist did respond within hours of being notified; just as Tom Peters did with Charteuse's comments. That's about as much as anyone can expect from them. In that sense, they were far from facilitating or supporting of such discriminatory advertising. Craigslist doesn't review and process advertising on their site. They didn't approve the subject posting to be carried. They did, however, remove it when it was brought to their attention. That, in my humble opinion, is an adequate demonstration of their responsible practice.

Technology is difficult to restrain. If your email gets spammed with pornographic material, should you, as a host computer of such material be arrested for having pornographic images on your computer (if you live in an area where such is illegal?) As Chartreuse puts it, you are the host of the content - it is your responsibility. Or would it be more reasonable if you just deleted it? But what if you were on holidays when it was delivered? What if it took you one week to delete the illegal content? Shouldn't the creator and distributor of the pornography be accountable? Are there circumstances that must be considered in these cases regarding host responsibility? Or is it so black and white?

Posted by Tom O'Leary at February 28, 2006 7:04 AM

By the way, do you think that the creator of discriminatory content should be sued for creating and distributing the content Chartreuse? Or should the site that it was posted on be solely responsible? What about the web host that carries the site? What about the hub on which the host resides? How would you assign blame? Should accountability be evenly spread - 33% - 33% - 33% or would the creator bear the greatest amount of responsibility?

BTW: Craigslist has the following disclaimer on their site now:

"Stating a discriminatory preference in a housing post is illegal, and prohibited on craigslist."

Posted by Tom O'Leary at February 28, 2006 7:14 AM

Craigslist was on CNN cable - maybe MSNBC last night regarding rampant sexual content springing up - FYI the new Craigslist Details' mag article mentioned before is worth a look.

Posted by Sean at February 28, 2006 10:52 AM

Would it be more prevalent than what's on MySpace Sean? MySpace is a real meat market! In your profile, you can select:

a. single
b. in a relationship
c. married
d. swinger!

Social networks are getting, er, very social indeed. Then, if you look in the personals sections of any newspaper or magazine they always have the:

a. men looking for women
b. men looking for men
c. women looking for men
d. women looking for women
e. alternative

Posted by Tom O'Leary at February 28, 2006 11:40 AM

f. couples looking for extra fun
g. guys looking for B'ham models

Too much of this though is contributing to rampant STD's and higher costs for all in health care which is approaching 20% of USA GDP.

Posted by Sean at February 28, 2006 12:03 PM

It's like putting an egg in the microwave Sean. It'll explode eventually. The problem is that so many younger people are naive to STDs, even with all the information available to them today. They think that being protected against pregnancy is all that they have to worry about. A couple months later, and it's warts-r-us - or worse yet, AIDS. But, many feel a need to be desired at any cost, because they lacked the security and love that they so desperately needed in their formative years (0-5/7). Now they're willing to risk their lives trying to find a temporary filling for that void in places where it doesn't exist.

Posted by Tom O'Leary at February 28, 2006 12:26 PM

In a frictionless enviroment reasonable care needs to be taken to protect abuse.

In the Craigslist situation, once it was flagged it should have been taken down in a reasonable amount of time. Not days. Hours. If that's what they did then the lawsuit is worthless.

The inflammatory remarks I posted is a perfect example of how it should be handled. It was taken off. I was sent an email and warned.

It's in a companies best interest to handle these situations swiftly. If we allow internet companies not to be responsible then it will really be a free for all.

Posted by chartreuse at February 28, 2006 12:32 PM

Tom O - recently read research on young brains - scans show that those younger than 22 don't 'light up' brain areas that deal with cognition relating to consequence of actions - in other words they really do not 'get it' - plus MSM has them believing the promiscuous lifestyle is the celebrity model to adopt - ahhh for the pre-HIV seemingly minimal STD '70's.

Posted by Sean at February 28, 2006 12:53 PM

I agree Chartreuse. Absolving anyone of responsibility for behavior or [in]action is a dangerous game. I believe that Craigslist responded with action within hours of notification. To me, that shows that they didn't waffle.

But what then of the presence of the thousands/millions of biased sites on the Internet, like aryan-nations.org? Is it our prized 'freedom of speech' that allows the broadcasting of such obviously biased and discriminatory content? Perhpas if the site exists for such a purpose, it's existence is outside of the greater public domain (like Hustler or Penthouse would be, even though they're sold in most shops, they respond to a niche market).

Are there any lawyers in the house to explain how arayan-nation.org can legally promote hatred while one discriminatory comment on Craigslist brings the SWAT team out?

On the front page of aryan-nations.org:

Only Jihad Will End The Zionist Occupation, Gaza the stolen land of PALESTINE...

So what gives?

Posted by Tom O'Leary at March 1, 2006 2:31 AM

viagra with no prescription

Tom - good point about the double-standards applied to a commercial organisation vs. a political one. I think there's one other big takeaway from this debate: shouldn't all complaints be dealt with swiftly, sympathetically and consistently? There's a basic customer service lesson in here that I suspect we can all usefully remember.

Posted by Mark JF at March 2, 2006 4:11 AM

Great adaptation that we can all take away from this Mark. I tell e-mail marketers regularly, if someone opts-out from your newsletter, don't waffle, take them off your list. Too often, we opt-out of an email list only to continue receiving the material after doing so. The same is true for customer service and any other relationship, on or off-line. Especially today, prompt response is expected. We used to be happy with 24 hour delivery. Now, I think the latest studies suggest that we expect a response to an email within 4 hours. We're getting more impatient these days, and our customer service needs to respond effectively to those expectations.

Posted by Tom O'Leary at March 2, 2006 5:33 AM

Today:

Legal Precedent With Craigslist In Fair Housing Suit - NY Times

Legal precedent sides with Craigslist in its lawsuit with a fair housing group in Chicago, says The New York Times. The housing group claims the online classifieds provider violates the federal Fair Housing Act by allowing posts like "African Americans tend to clash with me" on its Web site. The precedent for court cases dealing with defamatory statements and public free speech on the Internet have almost universally sided with the companies that publish what others say. Due to the 1996 Communications Decency Act, the Internet is open season all the time for consumers to say exactly what they want, and Web companies cannot be held liable for invasion of privacy, fraud, breach of contract, libel and yes, housing discrimination. This means companies like Amazon and eBay cannot be sued for publishing millions of user reviews of products by the sellers who sell the products, and MSN and AOL cannot be held responsible for the entries posted on its message boards. However, fair housing advocates argue that such immunity is too broad. On Tuesday, James Perry of the Greater New Orleans Housing Action Center claimed the discriminatory postings on Craigslist's New Orleans site are the "most concerning issues" the city has faced since Hurricane Katrina. Perry told the court "Discriminatory advertising is distinctly different," from the protections of the 1996 law. Meanwhile, Jim Buckmaster, the chief executive of Craigslist, said imposing liability on the site would effectively ruin it. But consumers don't seem to mind: "We have received virtually no complaints about fair housing issues," Buckmaster said.

Posted by Tom O'Leary at March 6, 2006 11:06 AM

Tom O - Craig of craigslist profiled in latest Costco magazine - can't find it online or would have sent.

Posted by Sean at March 7, 2006 1:35 PM

Won't be long before I'm in Costco! I just heard today that they have a business store as well (selling computers, desks, etc!

Posted by Tom O'Leary at March 8, 2006 6:46 AM