1. On your own, read the publisher’s notice from the Seattle Times, USA, 27 March 2007.

2. What is your immediate, personal reaction to the notice?

3. Form into small groups with your colleagues and compare your more considered reactions including different cultural approaches and interpretation of the Fair Housing Act by the Seattle Times. What conclusions do you draw?

4. To what extent do you think such a notice would be appropriate in the UK and/or any other country?

Transcribed Image Text:

PUBLISHER'S NOTICE: Recent amendment of the Federal Fair Housing Act suggests that we caution advertisers against real estate advertising that may be interpreted as discriminatory. The Fair Housing Act makes it illegal to advertise any preference, limitation, or otherwise encourage discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, handicap, or familial status. Also, local laws forbidding discrimination in real estate ads not only repeat the federal categories but add prohibitions against discrimination based on age, parental status, sexual orientation, political ideology, or a renter's qualification for rent subsidy support. To avoid both civil and criminal liability, obvious words should be avoided that connote any of the forbidden categories. Other words not so obvious have been interpreted liberally by the courts to violate the categories. The Seattle Times Co. makes a substantial good faith effort to help advertisers reduce their risk of liability. For example, the following terms may, in the context of an ad, be considered in violation of federal, state or local laws and, if so, would be unacceptable in real estate advertising in either The Seattle Times or the Post-intelligencer. Adult Bachelor Couple Mature No Children One Person Retired* Sex (may be OK in advertising for roommates) Single Two People