Court Cases

Two Southern California fair housing organizations sued Roomate.com, an Internet-based roommate matching service, arguing that the website must be held responsible for postings on the site that violate federal fair housing laws. Roommate.com argued that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects websites from liability for content posted by third parties, gives it complete immunity from suit. After agreeing to have the case re-heard en banc, the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion that holds housing websites accountable for their own actions that violate the fair housing laws but sustains the important free speech protections of section 230 by holding that housing websites may not be held liable for the discriminatory comments of users of the site. The ACLU Foundation of Northern California filed a friend of the court brief urging the court to carefully separate content and conduct by Roommate.com from that of the individuals who use its service.

In March 2007, the ACLU Foundation of Northern California filed a lawsuit in Napa Superior Court on behalf of five families, seeking judicial relief from an unconstitutionally vague, overbroad, and restrictive dress code enforced by Redwood Middle School and the Napa Valley USD.

The District Attorney of Yolo County in late December 2004 sought a permanent injunction against the Broderick Boys “gang,” attempting to place on permanent probation, without any trial or due process, hundreds of residents of a predominantly Latino neighborhood in West Sacramento. In July 2005, the ACLU Foundation of Northern California filed a motion to set aside the permanent injunction for lack of notice, which the judge denied. The ACLU Foundation of Northern California appealed, filing the final brief in that appeal in June 2006. On April 23, 2007, the California Court of Appeal agreed with the ACLU Foundation of Northern California and voided the permanent injunction imposed on the so-called Broderick Boys gang.

The issue raised in Barrett v. Rosenthal was whether the protection of the Communications Decency Act's Section 230 applies to individuals who frequently use the Internet to pass on information obtained elsewhere, whether by forwarding an email written by someone else or, as was the case in Barrett, posting an email from someone else to a newsgroup. The ACLU Foundation of Northern California filed an amicus brief in the California Court of Appeal arguing that Section 230 means what it says and applies to “users” of interactive computer services as well as “providers.”