NYT was just a platform allowing people to advertise. They got done under Fair Housing Act because they allowed racist adverts and didn't do enough to stop racist adverts.
> In the four-year court fight, The Times sought to dismiss the suit on First Amendment grounds, arguing that the ads were created by advertisers and that the newspaper "merely published the advertisements as submitted."
> But Federal courts ruled against the newspaper, saying that there would be no infringement of press freedoms for a newspaper to refuse advertisements that would, as the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit put it, "to the ordinary reader indicate a racial preference." The United States Supreme Court refused to review the case in 1991.
DanBC|9 years ago
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/08/14/nyregion/times-adopts-a-ne...
> In the four-year court fight, The Times sought to dismiss the suit on First Amendment grounds, arguing that the ads were created by advertisers and that the newspaper "merely published the advertisements as submitted."
> But Federal courts ruled against the newspaper, saying that there would be no infringement of press freedoms for a newspaper to refuse advertisements that would, as the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit put it, "to the ordinary reader indicate a racial preference." The United States Supreme Court refused to review the case in 1991.