Hacker News Reader

Comment by superchink | Hacker News Reader

See, I didn't read it that way.

"…that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination…"

If the ad itself does not mention the preference, then it does not seem to be covered by this clause.

Would it not be analogous to advertising the property to a particular racial or religious group, such as a church bulletin board?

The distribution of the ad is being targeted, but the ad itself does not indicate any preference. It seems as if the latter is the only thing that is deemed illegal by the law.

Am I reading it correctly?

View on HN

I agree it doesn't seem to violate the letter of this particular law.

But it's close to being the digital version of redlining. Before the Fair Housing Act real estate brokers would show certain houses only to white clients and other houses only to clients of color. That was explicitly deemed illegal. If you see real estate brokers as a medium through which sellers would advertise their houses I don't see how this is much different.

There is a huge difference.

1. Real estate was not easily searchable in the past.

2. An ad is at least one degree away from a broker in this process. The broker works directly with the buyer and seller while an ad passes leads to brokers.

Sometimes I think what real estate agents can't say goes too far.

https://realestate.usnews.com/real-estate/articles/what-your...

The three that stand out are that a real estate agent can't mention crime rates, school ratings, or that a house may not be wheelchair accessible - even if the buyer asks.

That's a bit odd since now all that data is available to the public --why bind the RE agent's hands in this matter? I mean, perhaps in the past they had "insider" knowledge of those particular statistics but not today.

I think you're right, but I'm not sure I'm wrong... yet.

First, I think I misinterpreted paragraph C w.r.t. how it applies to the ads themselves. I think you're right here, that the ads aren't illegal, since they don't do any discriminating in and of themselves.

However, the text of the law seems to say that placing the order for the ads may be illegal. Placing the order would seem to constitute the making of a statement (with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling) that indicates a preference (or intention to make that preference) based on race. I realize that might feel like way too low a bar, but it seems to fit.

IANAL, but that's how it seems to me.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com