Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Inc. v. Craigslist, Inc.

Filing 52

Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Inc. v. Craigslist, Inc.

Doc. 52

Case 1:06-cv-00657

Document 52

Filed 11/17/2006

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CHICAGO LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW, INC., Plaintiff, v. CRAIGSLIST, INC., Defendant.

Case No. 06 C 0657 Judge Amy J. St. Eve Magistrate Judge Jeffrey Cole

PLAINTIFF CHICAGO LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW, INC.'S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT Plaintiff Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Inc. (CLC), by its attorneys, hereby moves this Court to alter or amend judgment entered on November 14, 2006. In support of this Motion, Plaintiff states as follows: 1. CLC asks this Court to reconsider its meager reading of the words"to print in Section " 3604(c) of the Fair Housing Act. The Supreme Court has long held that the Fair Housing Act should be interpreted liberally, to effectuate its important remedial purpose. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. v. Village of Arlington Heights, 616 F.2d 1006, 1011 (7th Cir. 1980) ( The language of the Fair Housing Act is `broad and inclusive, `subject to' generous " construction'), citing Trafficante v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 409 U.S. 205, 209 (1972). " Moreover, even the definition of "to print cited by this Court (at n.18) ( to perform . . . the " " operations necessary to the production of . . . a picture ) encompasses craigslist's conduct, i.e., its " creation and display of a digital picture of discriminatory text.

DM_US\8412155.v1

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 1:06-cv-00657

Document 52

Filed 11/17/2006

Page 2 of 3

2. CLC also asks this Court to reconsider its holding that the prohibition in Section 230(c)(1) on"[t]reatment of a publisher or speaker bars any claim with "publication as an element. " " The statutory language and its legislative history demonstrate that by prohibiting"[t]reatment of publisher or speaker, Congress did not intend to bar every claim as to which publication is an " element, but rather to preclude imposition of liability on a provider of interactive computer services (ICS) because it screened third-party content. The Conference Committee report states, "o]ne of the specific purposes of this section is to overrule Stratton-Oakmont v. Prodigy and any [ other similar decisions which have treated such providers and users as publishers or speakers of content that is not their own because they have restricted access to objectionable material." H.R. REP. NO. 104-458, at 194 (1996) (Conf Rep.) (attached as Ex. 5 to Pl.'s Mem. in Opp'n to Mot.). 3. When passing the prohibition on"[t]reatment of publisher or speaker, Congress " repeatedly acknowledged that it was troubled by two defamation decisions (Prodigy and Cubby) which treated an ICS as a publisher or speaker when the ICS exercised editorial control, but only as a distributor when the ICS refused to exercise editorial control. Under defamation law, a " ublisher is held to a higher liability standard than a "distributor. Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. p " " Prodigy Servs. Co.,1995 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 229, at 7 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1995) ( with this editorial " control comes increased liability ) (attached as Ex. 8 to Pl.'s Mem. in Opp'n to Mot.); Statement of " Rep. Cox, "The court said . . . . You . . . are going to face higher, stricter liability because you tried to exercise some control over offensive material. ) 141 CONG. REC. H8469 (1995) (attached " as Ex. 7 to Pl.'s Mem. in Opp'n to Mot.). 4. Section 230(c), as originally written, did not contain a separate prohibition on "reatment of publisher or speaker. The prohibition on"[t]reatment of publisher or speaker was the t " " first sentence of what is now Section 230(c)(2), which (like the Conference Committee Report) 2
DM_US\8412155.v1

Case 1:06-cv-00657

Document 52

Filed 11/17/2006

Page 3 of 3

suggests that the prohibition on"[t]reatment of publisher or speaker explains and prefaces the " screening protection set forth in the next sentence.
1

5. In short, Congress itself addressed what it meant by its prohibition on"[t]reatment of publisher or speaker and said that it wished to ensure that no court would treat an ICS as a " publisher just because that ICS had screened third-party content. Here, this case would not treat craigslist as a publisher because craigslist screened third-party content. CLC argues that craigslist failed to screen out the discriminatory third-party content and is therefore not entitled to 230(c) protection for good faith screening. WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Inc., respectfully asks this Court to reconsider its decision and to alter or amend the November 14, 2006, judgment. Dated: November 17, 2006 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Stephen D. Libowsky Stephen D. Libowsky Wm. Bradford Reynolds Louis A. Crisostomo Howrey LLP 321 North Clark Street, Suite 3400 Chicago, Illinois 60610 [phone]

Laurie Wardell Elyssa Balingit Winslow Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Inc. 100 North LaSalle Street, Suite 600 Chicago, Illinois 60602 [phone]

Attorneys for Plaintiff Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Inc.

Although the Conference Committee separated what is now 230(c)(1) into a separate provision and added a subtitle, the Committee stated that it did not intend to alter the substance of Section 230(c). The Conference Committee Report states, "The conference agreement adopts the House provision with minor modifications as a new Section 230 of the Communications Act." H.R. REP. NO. 104-458, at 194 (1996) (Conf. Rep.) (attached as Ex. 5 to Pl.'s Mem. in Opp'n to Mot.); 141 CONG. REC. H8469 (1995) (attached as Ex. 7 to Pl.'s Mem. In Opp'n to Mot.).

1

3
DM_US\8412155.v1