No Strict Liability for Manufacturer of Unavoidably Unsafe Blood-Clotting Agent Which Gave Woman AIDS

not an overwhelming burden to the newspaper. Also, because the number of black models used would be entirely discretionary, such requirements would not impose a "quota" on the inclusion of black models. Furthermore, the court held that inclusion of such models would not significantly burden the numerous arbitrary decisions made in every advertisement. Based on the standards above, the court held that the complaint could not be dismissed for failure to state a claim, as the complaint alleged a longstanding pattern in real estate advertisements indicating racial preference. Constitutional Issues The Times also argued that section 3604(c) was void for vague-ness. The court noted that regardless of whether the vagueness doctrine applied to civil actions, the ordinary reader standard provided constitutionally sufficient notice of the prohibited conduct. Thus, the statute did not fail on the basis of vagueness. Next, the Times claimed that application of section 3604(c) to newspapers violated the first amendment. The court noted that the first amendment gave less protection to commercial speech than to other constitutionally protected speech. The first amendment did not protect commercial speech relating to illegal activity. The court noted that the Fair Housing Act prohibited advertisements displaying racial preferences. Therefore, the first amendment did not protect advertisements which violated section 3604(c) and promoted illegal activity, discrimination in the sale or rental of real estate. The court also addressed the supposed unconstitutional burdens imposed on the Times by section 3604(c). First, the court reviewed the Times's argument that application of the Fair Housing Act to newspapers would disrupt the function of the free press. Citing Supreme Court precedent, the court concluded that section 3604(c) would not compromise the unique position of the free press. The Times also argued that section 3604(c) would unconstitution-ally burden newspapers by compelling them to enforce the law under the Fair Housing Act. The appel-late court, however, rejected this argument. The court held that the "would-be regulators" were not the publishers, but the offended readers , such as Ragin and Open Housing. These readers bore the burden of proving racial preference in the advertisements. Therefore, the court concluded that section 3604(c) did not place an unconsti-tutional burden on the publishers. Lastly, the court dismissed the Times's argument that the publisher was "ill-equipped" to monitor the advertisements. The court noted that advertisements were routinely and extensively reviewed before they were published in the newspaper. Therefore, monitoring the advertisements for racial …