In 2007, two fair housing groups in California sued a Web site that helps people find roommates, called Roommate.com. The housing groups alleged that the Web site was in clear violation of the Fair Housing Act. Apparently, the Web site violated the act because the Web site allowed users to discriminate among people and who individuals were able to live with based on religion, sexual preference, gender, and so on. However, the Web site argued that its practices were protected under the Communication Decency Act.
In other words, the Web site stated that the users were freely describing their own wants, and not the views or opinions of the Web site itself. However, the court took note that the Web site provided menus for users to choose preferences among religions, race, gender, and the like. How did the court decide in this case?
Explain how the legal philosophy one adheres to would make one more or less supportive of the court's ruling.
Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommate.com LLC, 521 F.3d 1157; 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 7066 (9th Cir. 2008).