The Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law has filed suit against Craigslist, citing the appearance on the site of discriminatory housing ads that violate the Fair Housing Act of 1968. Such ads are illegal in newspapers and other print publications, and the housing group maintains that online publications like Craigslist should be held to the same standards. Craigslist CEO Jim Buckmaster counters with two arguments: one, that the site is a "user-controlled commons" and as such should not be treated exactly as if it were a newspaper; two, that mandating a manual screening process for all two million free housing ads (of unlimited length) submitted per month would be unreasonably burdensome for his company of 19 employees to implement.

His second argument is pretty weak. What about the first one? We're still taking baby steps in the process of applying legal structures from the offline to the online world, and a case like this could set legal precedent with far-reaching ramifications for online publications. What happens when the wisdom of crowds isn't so wise, after all? Who is then responsible? IMHO Craiglist is benefiting from the "wisdom of crowds" and should in turn bear the responsibility that comes with it. It seems to me they can't have it both ways -- reap the benefits of the crowd's wisdom, yet turn around and scapegoat the crowd's ignorance. I think the housing group has a good case, and should they win, we may see the cost of social advertising rise dramatically.