5 ms·

> The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in housing transactions including print and online advertisement on the basis of race, color, national origin, r

> The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in housing transactions including print and online advertisement on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability, or familial status. Emphasis mine. If the FHA does indeed prohibit online advertisement discriminating on those criteria, this sounds pretty damning to Facebook. Those are some of the key features of Facebook ads.

burkaman 8y ago
https://www.justice.gov/crt/fair-housing-act-2 https://www.justice.gov/crt/fair-housing-act-2 Sec. 804 (c): > To make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published any notice, statement, or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin, or an intention to make any such preference, limitation, or discrimination. This clearly covers online or any other kind of ad.
- RightMillennial 8y ago
  I just found that same page. The heading to that section is: > Sec. 804. [42 U.S.C. 3604] Discrimination in sale or rental of housing and other prohibited practices
- TangoTrotFox 8y ago
  Looks like if this goes to trial it's all going to hinge on exactly what "To publish an advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling, with an intention to make a preference based on race, color, ..." means. To me that seems quite clearly to refer to the ad itself - that the ad cannot make a preference, implicitly or explicitly, for any group. However, who the ad is shown to would seem to be another issue altogether. If this applies even in who the ads is shown to, think about the implications. What if I run an ad in e.g. "Golf Digest Weekly"? Would that be unlawful for that publication to actually publish? What if I place a billboard in a high income area? Is the billboard renter liable? Is my ad unlawful? If I place a for-sale sign in the yard of a vacant house in a high-end neighborhood, is that unlawful as well? I'd like to think the HUD has thought out their case and it's implications, but I don't see how you can take their interpretation of this law without practically destroying all housing ads - which is clearly not their intent. So I'm very anxious to see how this plays out in court!
  - burkaman 8y ago
    Yes, your examples are potentially unlawful. See HUD's guidelines here: https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/DOC_7781.PDF https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/DOC_7781.PDF > § 109.25 Selective use of advertising media or content. > (a) Selective geographic advertisements. Such selective use may involve the strategic placement of billboards; brochure advertisements distributed within a limited geographic area by hand or in the mail; advertising in particular geographic coverage editions of major metropolitan newspapers or in newspapers of limited circulation which are mainly advertising vehicles for reaching a particular segment of the community; or displays or announcements available only in selected sales offices. If this sounds burdensome, it's supposed to be, changing society and correcting centuries of inequality and discrimination requires significant active effort. Also remember that intent and reasonable expectations matter. You as an individual with limited means and no legal advice would be held to a different standard than Facebook, a corporation with many orders of magnitude more responsibility. Finally, remember that law is not code. The Fair Housing Act is a tool to be used judiciously by humans to correct wrongs, not a precise standard that can be applied in the same way to every situation. It's not possible to write a law that anticipates every possible scenario, that's why we write relatively vague laws and involve humans at every step of the process.
    - TangoTrotFox 8y ago
      You can't conflate issues here. There are two major questions in play: 1) Is it unlawful for the advertiser to publish advertisements that may result in an individual selectively advertising? There seems to be no law or guidance even suggesting that the answer is yes here. For instance, under your guidance the billboard owner (who then rents it to the advertiser) would not be liable for not ensuring that the advertiser was advertising in a sufficiently broad, or random, variety of locations to fulfill the legal regulations. Facebook in this case is not the person placing the advertisements - but the venue of advertisement. 2) Is it unlawful for a person to advertise without complete demographic representation? This is not what this case is about, though it's an interesting question. The HUD's guidance makes this quite clear though, like you mention, that is guidance from the HUD and not necessarily the law itself. Government agencies tend to take very broad positions on laws, but these interpretations do not always hold up in the courts. It would be interesting to see how this point is argued from both sides, though this is a tangential issue. This case is quite peculiar though since the HUD release seems to be building a case based on #2, yet targeting a defendant was would be implied from #1. This seems highly inconsistent, so again - it should be very interesting to see how this case develops.
briandear 8y ago
The ads themselves are protected, but wouldn’t the publication venue not be covered? Otherwise housing ads in the Chicago Defender would be illegal right?
- azernik 8y ago
  The publication is indeed liable. The language isn't about placing the ad: "To make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published any notice, statement, or advertisement..." A classic example was a case brought against the New York Times for discriminatory housing classified ads. Now, what's interesting here is that Facebook is involved in the targeting. So, if you only place housing ads in the Chicago Defender, and don't place them in White newspapers, the Defender isn't involved in your discrimination; however, if you place ads in the Defender stating "Black Tenants Only" and the Defender published those, the Defender would probably be liable. And if you pay an advertising firm and tell them to only place your ad in "Black" newspapers then that firm that did the targeting would be liable. (Although in terms of enforcement priorities, such discrimination is probably very small-scale and wouldn't be very high up on HUD's or DoJ's list.)

burkaman 8y ago

https://www.justice.gov/crt/fair-housing-act-2 https://www.justice.gov/crt/fair-housing-act-2 Sec. 804 (c): > To make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published any notice, statement, or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin, or an intention to make any such preference, limitation, or discrimination. This clearly covers online or any other kind of ad.

RightMillennial 8y ago
I just found that same page. The heading to that section is: > Sec. 804. [42 U.S.C. 3604] Discrimination in sale or rental of housing and other prohibited practices
TangoTrotFox 8y ago
Looks like if this goes to trial it's all going to hinge on exactly what "To publish an advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling, with an intention to make a preference based on race, color, ..." means. To me that seems quite clearly to refer to the ad itself - that the ad cannot make a preference, implicitly or explicitly, for any group. However, who the ad is shown to would seem to be another issue altogether. If this applies even in who the ads is shown to, think about the implications. What if I run an ad in e.g. "Golf Digest Weekly"? Would that be unlawful for that publication to actually publish? What if I place a billboard in a high income area? Is the billboard renter liable? Is my ad unlawful? If I place a for-sale sign in the yard of a vacant house in a high-end neighborhood, is that unlawful as well? I'd like to think the HUD has thought out their case and it's implications, but I don't see how you can take their interpretation of this law without practically destroying all housing ads - which is clearly not their intent. So I'm very anxious to see how this plays out in court!
- burkaman 8y ago
  Yes, your examples are potentially unlawful. See HUD's guidelines here: https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/DOC_7781.PDF https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/DOC_7781.PDF > § 109.25 Selective use of advertising media or content. > (a) Selective geographic advertisements. Such selective use may involve the strategic placement of billboards; brochure advertisements distributed within a limited geographic area by hand or in the mail; advertising in particular geographic coverage editions of major metropolitan newspapers or in newspapers of limited circulation which are mainly advertising vehicles for reaching a particular segment of the community; or displays or announcements available only in selected sales offices. If this sounds burdensome, it's supposed to be, changing society and correcting centuries of inequality and discrimination requires significant active effort. Also remember that intent and reasonable expectations matter. You as an individual with limited means and no legal advice would be held to a different standard than Facebook, a corporation with many orders of magnitude more responsibility. Finally, remember that law is not code. The Fair Housing Act is a tool to be used judiciously by humans to correct wrongs, not a precise standard that can be applied in the same way to every situation. It's not possible to write a law that anticipates every possible scenario, that's why we write relatively vague laws and involve humans at every step of the process.
  - TangoTrotFox 8y ago
    You can't conflate issues here. There are two major questions in play: 1) Is it unlawful for the advertiser to publish advertisements that may result in an individual selectively advertising? There seems to be no law or guidance even suggesting that the answer is yes here. For instance, under your guidance the billboard owner (who then rents it to the advertiser) would not be liable for not ensuring that the advertiser was advertising in a sufficiently broad, or random, variety of locations to fulfill the legal regulations. Facebook in this case is not the person placing the advertisements - but the venue of advertisement. 2) Is it unlawful for a person to advertise without complete demographic representation? This is not what this case is about, though it's an interesting question. The HUD's guidance makes this quite clear though, like you mention, that is guidance from the HUD and not necessarily the law itself. Government agencies tend to take very broad positions on laws, but these interpretations do not always hold up in the courts. It would be interesting to see how this point is argued from both sides, though this is a tangential issue. This case is quite peculiar though since the HUD release seems to be building a case based on #2, yet targeting a defendant was would be implied from #1. This seems highly inconsistent, so again - it should be very interesting to see how this case develops.

briandear 8y ago

The ads themselves are protected, but wouldn’t the publication venue not be covered? Otherwise housing ads in the Chicago Defender would be illegal right?

azernik 8y ago
The publication is indeed liable. The language isn't about placing the ad: "To make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published any notice, statement, or advertisement..." A classic example was a case brought against the New York Times for discriminatory housing classified ads. Now, what's interesting here is that Facebook is involved in the targeting. So, if you only place housing ads in the Chicago Defender, and don't place them in White newspapers, the Defender isn't involved in your discrimination; however, if you place ads in the Defender stating "Black Tenants Only" and the Defender published those, the Defender would probably be liable. And if you pay an advertising firm and tell them to only place your ad in "Black" newspapers then that firm that did the targeting would be liable. (Although in terms of enforcement priorities, such discrimination is probably very small-scale and wouldn't be very high up on HUD's or DoJ's list.)