'Fair Housing' Laws Violate Free Speech

Imposition of heavy-handed government regulation is not limited to the business firm, large or small. Some of the most onerous rulemaking is directed at the individual citizen. The enforcement of "fair housing" regulations is a cogent case in point. The classified section of a large regional daily newspaper recently provided a real eye-opener.

I checked the real estate pages on a city I used to live in to see how expensive my old neighborhood had become. It took a while to locate the actual advertisements. They were preceded by 113 lines of warning about words and phrases that could not be used in real estate ads. Familiar with government regulation, I expected to be warned against any mention of race, religion, or ethnic background on the part of those trying to rent, buy, or sell a residence.

However, I was not prepared for the paper's statement that "the following terms would be unacceptable in real estate advertising." Potential advertisers were being told, in effect, that even if they took full responsibility for the consequences, an advertisement containing the proscribed language would not be published.

In my naivete, I expected that extremely bigoted or foul language would have had to be involved to justify this departure from the traditional freedom of the press. Indeed, people of my generation can recall seeing such vile signs as, "No dogs or blacks or Jews allowed" (the actual language was rougher than that).

Today, the proscribed inflammatory words are quite of a different type. They include such "horrible" terms as adult, bachelor, couple, mature, one person, retired, and single. The implication is that if an 80-year-old landlord of a two-unit apartment building prefers not to have youngsters bouncing overhead, he is guilty of discrimination if he advertises his preference.

Unfortunately, the examples that follow in the newspaper's real estate section are even more extreme. Another prohibited description is--to quote from the publisher's notice--"executive (such as a 'large executive home')." I have read that item several times without getting any hint of the awful bigotry involved in describing a building as a large executive home.

Likewise, it apparently is against the law to describe a building as "near St. Mark's." It would seem that the specific location would be a plus to a member of that denomination and thus constitute a selling point. Of course, the advertiser's intent could be even more innocent--just to help prospective buyers find the place by linking it to a major landmark.

In addition, we are not allowed to advertise that a residence is "ideal for a physically fit person." Would not such notice help people on crutches forced to travel in search of a residence only to find out that it involves a walk up several flights of stairs?

The list of inappropriate language was preceded by a warning that other "not so obvious" words have been interpreted by the courts to violate the Federal Fair Housing Act or state and local laws on that same subject. I did not feel much relief when I read the following statement: "This list is by no means complete."

By the way, the standard excuse for government involvement in private decision-making--that government funding is involved--is not present in the case of these restrictions on advertising. The censorship of language is not connected to government funding, even assuming that is an adequate justification. This is not a case of governments attaching strings to the largesse that they are providing. The prohibited language extends to all advertising of housing, even if no government money is involved.

In instances like these, we may wonder what happened to the constitutional provision that "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. . . ." It is sad, but apparently necessary, for a citizen to urge the press to be more vigilant in maintaining our basic liberties.

Murray Weidenbaum is chairman of the Center for the Study of American Business.