Slashdot Mirror
Brendan Eich Steps Down As Mozilla CEO
New submitter matafagafo (1343219) writes with this news, straight from the Mozilla blog, which comes in the wake of controversy over Brendan Eich's polticial views (in particular, his support for California's Proposition 8, which would have reversed a decision legalizing same-sex marriage within the state). and how they would reflect on the organization : "Brendan Eich has chosen to step down from his role as CEO. He's made this decision for Mozilla and our community. Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech. Equality is necessary for meaningful speech. And you need free speech to fight for equality. Figuring out how to stand for both at the same time can be hard ..."
I am a lesbian and I still think hounding Eich for standing for Prop. 8 and threatening to boycott a cornerstone of the internet and internet development if he was CEO of the Mozilla foundation is complete and utter intolerant bullshit. I am very disappointed with people doing such things and disappointed he caved to such.
Now, the next time we disagree with anything that a CEO does, then we should issue a boycott of more of their completely unrelated, free software.
So, when do we start boycotting Linus for being one of the biggest jerks in the community?
...Keep your political views well hidden if you plan to head up an organisation that is sensitive as to how it is perceived by a cross-section of society.
Deal with reality - the world as it is - rather than ideality - the world as you would like it to be.
I'm not sure how we are supposed to take this. I guess the Thought Police have won another round. I've never met the guy and don't know much about him but it seems like he was harpooned for personal beliefs (that clearly match up with many other people based on the vote). Are we really this much against differing viewpoints? Against religious freedom?
Wow America. Step back and get a grip.
If he would have just waited a few weeks the whole thing would have just blown over. Even the ten people boycotting Firefox would have forgotten. He must have been under some internal pressure.
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
Clearly someone doesn't quite get it.
Sorry but this is NOT about freedom of speech... he had the freedom to support prop8, but the people boycotting firefox had the freedom to do so as well. Freedom of speech does not mean you have a right not to be criticized for your opinions.
I feel bad for him, it is only because of his public position that this is an issue. If you dig deep enough, none of us should keep our jobs.
His views wouldn't be an issue if the average person could think critically for themselves.
haha, eich was lynched. I guess gay people are as intolerant as homophobes.
No matter what he believed, this kind of tomfoolery doesn't bode well for public discourse in america
You can't defend his right to have a bigoted opinion and criticize others for their rejection of it. You're allowed to have whatever opinion you want, but you don't get to control other people's reactions to it.
Look it up. It's not what you think it is.
People should be free to engage in politics according to their conviction, without punishment or reward. The ballot is secret for a reason.
Political donations are publicised as a check against a few billionaires distorting the playing field. To see how much money influenced the election. It was not meant to be a tool for personal retribution.
Freedom of political activism doesn't cease to apply when it is about rights. Imagine if this happened in other controversies about rights:
Employer 1: "Oh, you are pro-choice? You want to deny unborn children the right to life. Fired!"
Employer 2: "Oh, you are pro-life? You want to deny women the right to self-determination. Fired!"
Employer 3: "Oh, you support the death penalty? You want to deny felons the right to life. Fired!"
This is wrong. People must never be demoted because of political activism they do privatly, not using the company brand, and not related to the company mission.
Yeah because we need more CEOs crusading to take away the rights of Americans.....
...small minded people who don't know what the first amendment says posting anonymously...
Freedom of speech does not mean that people have to like you whatever you say. It means people can say and support what they want without being punished by the law. Boycotting a business is neither illegal nor ordered by authority, so if you got people so angry they'll boycott any business which puts you in charge, that's too bad. The universe doesn't owe anybody a CEO job.
He might have salvaged it if he'd actually so much as said a word about the Prop 8 thing. Hell, this was years ago and one donation; it shouldn't be that hard to plausibly claim he regrets it. Instead he claimed to be committed to non-discrimination "within Mozilla", which is completely irrelevant to what he did. This would be like donating to the KKK but promising never to discriminate against an employee on racial grounds. Whoop-do-doo, the Mozilla Corporation is already bound by existing non-discrimination laws. That he didn't actually address this very much hints that he continues to be personally opposed to human rights. That's totally fine, plenty of people are. But he doesn't get to lead an organization that claims to be in favor of human rights, without causing a justifiable stink.
Whatever he believes, should we not tolerate that? Why should he be shunned for having a particular viewpoint? Do we want to live in a society where people are persecuted for their beliefs?
Right, "It only counts when people I disagree with do it"
So who wants a Boskonian running their company?
10 points! Someone FINALLY gets that!
Okay, I'm trying to summarize all of the events and make some sense out of it. In 2008, Eich gives $1,000 for support of Prop 8. I voted against Prop 8, as did 48% of the other Californians who voted that day (remember the measure passed). To my knowledge, he has said nothing otherwise and apparently did not interfere with apparently LGBT friendly policies of the Mozilla Corporation. In 2012, his donation was leaked somehow, and it causes headlines to flare. Two years ago. Late March 2014, the Mozilla board selects him as the CEO (he obviously is qualified for the job based on experience), full well knowing about his donation and the internal opposition. In April 2014, virtual blip on the online dating scene, OkCupid, capitalizes first and makes a glorious stand against the Mozilla browser because of a 6 year old donation. The media puts them on every front page, highlighting their commitment to LGBT rights and providing hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of free advertising.
So what do I get out of this? The board saw a win-win, if he can weather the storm of the Prop 8 fiasco then they get one of the most technically competent CEOs available, otherwise, they push him out and get a lot of visibility for doing so (and maybe more converts).
OkCupid was smart to capitalize, and Eich, whom I disagree with, gets the hammer.
I think Howard Stern was right, if you're planning on leading a public company, keep your mouth shut and be everybody's best friend.
"Who are you?" "No one of consequence." "I must know." "Get used to disappointment."
Behind the Iron Curtain there was every bit as much freedom as there was under the HUAC!!
I've got absolutely no time for poofter bashers.
But the torches-and-pitchforks brigade really overdid it this time.
Well, Eich did invent Javascript, and despite what that says about his judgement (or lack thereof), I think it's totally unfair to crucify somebody for their personal opinions. Just saying.
So, in order to support free speech, we are now destroying the livelihoods of people who support legislation that was passed by a majority of the voters in the state. This is a sad, sad day for the internet. When our kids ask us why the Internet isn't free, we can tell them it is because we were more worried about the feelings of 5% of the population than principles.
I know that intelligence can coexist with bigotry, dogma, and hate, but I still find myself asking how such an intelligent, competant person could be wrapped up in being a bigot.
The "gay community" has demanded, and set the precedent, that will enable me to fire any employee I discover is gay... Oh, NOT for BEING gay, and not for speaking on "gay issues", no, no ,no they respected his right to be who he was and say what he said, but they insisted his support for prop 8 was an actual action (which is not, in the gayverse, apparently allowed) which crossed the line and made him in-effect fireable. So if I find any employee is gay I just have to detect an ACTION which in some way assists some gay political policy and THEN it'll be just fine if I drop the axe. Check. Got it. Makes sense to me now.
hmmmm
Why do I still suspect that if I fire a gay employee for his actions in support of something I object to I may still find myself in court????
Good ol' progressive politics: "freedom for me, but not for thee". In progressive land, we all have freedom to believe and say what we want, as long as it's only what progressives want us to say and believe. Anything progressives do not like, will be labelled "hateful" and be banned, because progressives really HATE people who disagree with them!
"Freedom" used to include my freedom to dislike things you do, things you say and things you believe in... and your right to dislike things I do, things I say, and things I believe in... those were the days.
Mozilla believes in freedom of speech? That is pure doublespeak. Being forced from your job for a politically incorrect or ill-advised or counter productive political opinion is not supportive of free speech, is not supportive of tolerance.
As long as he treats his employees equally, and a marriage certificate is not necessary to do so with respect to health care and other benefits, and treats his customers equally there should be no issue with his role as CEO.
So he supported Proposition 8 six years ago. How much insight does that really give us into the scope of his character? How many CEOs have done much, much more despicable things in their personal and professional lives and faced little to no public criticism for it? You could write a novel on all of the rotten things that Steve Jobs did, but instead he gets praised by the media as the computing messiah, because none of his antics were hot-button political issues. The gay rights community is turning into the very thing they despise. Flame me all you want. This was NOT justice.
...even though I have 15 mod points...
Bullshit. Please stop masturbating in public. No one fucking cares how many mod points you have.
Or is it Ploor?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
The people boycotting are also expressing free speech. He is still entitled to say what he wants to say, but when you tout intolerant religion and politics publicly you will alienate the people you wanted to do business with. He will be frowned on by tolerant organizations like Mozilla, he will probably be favored by others, like Westborough Baptist Church.
(If at first you don't succeed, do it different next time!)
Please post a list of political, religious, and otherwise controversial views that your employees are allowed to believe in (and not just in the privacy of their own homes but in public, such as donating to a cause); similarly, post a corresponding list of views that will cause an employee to be terminated or to be forced to resign.
Please note that if you fail to do so, you will be considered cowardly as well as intolerant.
Sincerely,
Someone who doesn't put up with bullying
So the 53% who who voted for Prop8 (and therefore materially supported it) are now unpeople who should have no rights?
I don't see Eich, or any voter, being denied a single right much less "all of his (their) rights". Idiotic hyperbole, much?
Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
I've been firmly pro marriage equality and firmly against Prop 8 and its supporters forever. That said, I think this whole thing is really a shame. Supporting this law was deplorable, I think it's very much like supporting miscegenation laws last century. It's backwards and just shouldn't be a thing.
In On Liberty, JS Mill said something that's stuck with me since my undergrad Philosophy days:
"Those in whose eyes this reticence on the part of heretics is no evil, should consider in the first place, that in consequence of it there is never any fair and thorough discussion of heretical opinions; and that such of them as could not stand such a discussion, though they may be prevented from spreading, do not disappear."
However, we've won. The tide has turned and mainstream opinion is on our side. Assuming that's undisputed, we can't just browbeat and boycott people who still disagree. We should engage and accept them. Unless he's actually oppressing anyone, Eich deserves our respect and engagement. It's in our best interest if we ever want to leave the kinds of views he's expressed behind us. A "fair and thorough discussion" of the views supporting Prop 8 may seem downright silly to those who don't hold that view, but if we don't have it, we'll keep this nasty view around for a lot longer than if we do.
Further, I think people have been comfortable dismissing Eich and wanting him to leave simply because they don't want to acknowledge that someone who's contributed so much could have views they find so deplorable. Again, without supporting his views at all, I think he and those who oppose him both deserve more respect than they've received.
You act like it's the same as me or you having a difference in which star trek is better, it's nothing like that. he argues that some people deserve less than what everyone else gets, he thinks that a group of people doesn't get to do something. my argument is that everyone should be treated equal. He can go on believing they are going to hell or whatever, but as soon as he spends money on trying to make it so they don't have the same rights as other people it's a problem. although I don't think he should have stepped down over this.
This story has been a good opportunity to challenge my own assumptions. Some of the key questions I asked myself:
* Should Mozilla have a CEO who gave $1000 to support prop 8?
* Would it have been sufficient for him to renounce his support of the law?
* Would he also have to announce his support for same sex marriage?
* Would it be different if the campaign were to outlaw interracial couples?
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Where's the Conservative movement's boycott of Mozilla for oppressing an employee's exercise of their U.S. 1st Amendment rights, including freedom of political association, freedom of religion, freedom to petition, and freedom of speech (even, or especially, if not "politically correct")... and done on their own private time?
lynched? He is alive. Lynched is what happens to gays (I remember regular hate-killings on the news when I was growing up in Texas). And many of the people objecting were't gay. Your intolerance to facts is showing.
Learn to love Alaska
The issue I think most people have but can't vocalize it is that he went above and beyond just having an opinion that gay marriage is wrong, he went above and beyond the same means that anyone would have and actively contributed to suppressing other people's rights. Granted, $1000 is not much, but not everyone has 1k lying around that they can donate to a cause, so the only things that I believe are beyond reproach would be voicing one's opinion, voting and protesting. All of those things anybody can do, and all that doing those things does - is take your time up - which regardless of income or status, everyone's time has equal worth to themselves.
Anyways, If he had made an apology and donated like $2000 to pro gay rights or something, then I could see him keeping his job. Anyone complaining after that would be the ones actually being prejudice to opposing viewpoints, as opposed to prejudice against injustice and the suppression of rights. In my opinion at least.
It has nothing to do with where you work. The First Amendment only defends one from government punishing your speech. You can still boycott — and be boycotted — by non-governmental enterprises and individuals. Indeed, when the Amendment was written, the percentage of people working for private sector was much higher than today.
I am disgusted with the Illiberals' persecution of the supporters of the Prop 8, but I don't deny their right to do it... I do wish, the actual Liberals were as effective, though... Why, for example, is one getting into all sorts of trouble for opposing — not gay sex — gay marriage, but, for example, glamorizing Che Guevara is deemed perfectly acceptable?
You are free to protest and express your disgust for the glamorization of comrade Che . The Prop 8 comrades (El eich) took a personal issue, moralized and politicized it then demanded that their dislikes be legislated according to their religious/cultural beliefs. Denying a segment of society their alienable rights and pursuit of happiness. His hounding off a job is minute and not comparable to his support for victimization of a minority.
This isn't an issue of freedom of speech or freedom of religion. Eich wasn't fired; he stepped down. To be fair, there was probably a lot of pressure on him to step down, but at the end of the day I think all the higher ups at Mozilla (Eich included) realized that the revelation of Eich's donation to Prop 8 was doing a huge amount of damage to the Mozilla brand. In addition to managerial duties, a big part of being a CEO is being the face of a company. There's a reason why many companies vet potential CEOs the same way political parties vet candidates; if you do something that pisses people off, particularly people in your key demographic, you are hurting your company. A lot of young people use Mozilla products and young people in the United States overwhelmingly support gay marriage. Mozilla didn't want Firefox to become "the browser made by that guy who hates gay people" in the eyes of the public, so they made the call of getting rid of a very new CEO to avoid further public pressure. I would imagine that there's still a job for Eich at Mozilla if he wants it, but probably a lot more behind the scenes.
I wonder what the fallout will be for Mozilla. The definition of marriage varies through out the world. How will Mozilla and Firefox be viewed in parts of the world with a different marriage definition now that Eich was forced to resign? I believe there will be unintended consequences, some negative consequences for Mozilla and Firefox in the developing world.
The last time I checked America was a country of free speech. Well, it is...as long as you don't say something that offends the Gay/Lesbian/Transgender folks. Then you get fired for expressing your opinion.
What did Eich do that was so bad? He contributed $1000 to a campaign opposing gay marriage. It doesn't mean that the guy hates gays. It doesn't mean that he discriminates against anyone. There is no evidence that he has ever discriminated against anyone working at Mozilla, or their business partners, or their competitors for that matter. All he did was take a side in a constitutional amendment vote in the state of California. That is his right as a citizen. It is also his right to donate money towards the cause, if he chooses to do so. Just like people are free to donate money IN FAVOR of Gay marriage, should they choose to do so.
Personally, I could care less whether Eich supports Gay marriage or not. That's not the point. The point is that the man should be free to voice his opinion.
This smacks of exactly the kinds of McCarthyism communist witch hunts that took place back in the 1950's and 60's. At least Marc Andreessen has come out in support of his friend. I'll give him props for that.
Would you think it OK if the figurehead of a technological organization had to resign after boycots from those who objected to a $1000 donation, 5 years ago, to some side of the abortion issue, or the death penalty issue?
Eich was not just some employee of Mozilla - he was the CEO! You know, the guy who gets to decide what political causes that the "corporate person" of Mozilla will support, where is political contribution money would go, what it lobbyists say in Washington, or elsewhere. Would Mozilla, under Eich, continue to contribute to opponents of gay rights as it has in the past (it contributed to Tom McClintock's House campaign in 2010).
The politics of the CEO is a matter of considerable relevance in this day and age of virtually unlimited corporate influence.
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
That's an extreme insult to everyone who was actually lynched. I suppose that's why you posted your derp as an AC.
There's nothing wrong with not tolerating bigotry. If this clown was kicked out simply for being Christian, maybe because many employees understand that religion is idiotic, I'd be on his side, even though he's supposedly an adult and still believes the supernatural exists outside of fiction and the imagination.
He crossed a line when he financed bigotry. It's the same line Orson Scott Card crossed that lost him the support of everyone who opposes bigotry. No one came down on them for being religious flakes. The problem was that they promote inequality.
I've been a Mozilla Corporation employee for quite a few years now. I used to be proud of that.
While I am personally pretty traditional in most of my political and social views (as well as my sexuality), I was well aware that my Mozilla colleagues cover a wide spectrum; this has never been an issue either at work or in our extra-curricular interactions. The Mozilla community was welcoming to all who shared the vision for a free and open Web, and we worked together for that common goal.
Today, I am ashamed to be part of Mozilla.
There's something scarily Orwellian about a community that prides itself on "a wide diversity of views" and a "culture of openness" - but only provided those views align with those of a particularly vocal sub-group. Woe betide the community member who dares to differ.
Perhaps I don't belong here any more. Until now, I've ignored the periodic messages from tech recruiters at other companies, but if Mozilla has become a company - a movement - that is at the beck and call of the militant LGBT lobby, I am increasingly uncomfortable being part of it.
In the comments above I've read some of the most interesting discussions I've seen in a while around here. This is the stuff I come to /. for. Thank you all!
Error 001
Security Scan and Virus Detection do not work with your operating system.
Business leaders and politicians go through this all the time -- The way to get around this one is to publicly *apologize*, and release a statement like, "It was one time, almost a decade ago, I was confused and I'm sorry, my views have evolved". Maybe a $1,000 donation to a gay-rights organization.
But Eich didn't do that. He never explained the donation that I could see. Which I would interpret as saying that he STILL sticks to his opinion on the issue, and would rather resign from his leadership than have to say that he was wrong about it. So don't let the door hit you on the ass leaving.
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
Are all of them inelligable for any important positions now? Doesn't that cut the talent pool rather too much?
The courts rightly overruled these millions of ignorant/prejudiced/religious voters. Time to move on. Virtually lynching someone for having agreed with the majority on something wrong which has been righted doesn't help anyone.
This space intentionally left blank
A lot of chest beating going on here, a lot of flexing of consumer muscles, and talk of the righteous boycotting of bigots. From the outside however, it just looks like a pitchfork wielding mob, using coercion to bend a third party to their will.
People don't like seeing coercion, especially by groups who have no accountability to anyone, and I believe that the result of these protests will be a decrease in public's sympathy for equality of rights for gay people.
or, you know, people donating to causes which agree with their genuinely held religious beliefs.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Why can't people get it through their thick heads. Hey I know a great business model!
1. start a business
2. make a stance on a 50/50 topic like marriage or abortion that has absolutely nothing to do with your company in any way
3. go bankrupt
Civilization is formed when a few break away from the rest and decide to do things differently.
Separated, they set up their own rules, and they succeed.
Then everyone else comes in and wishes to partake of the wealth. But these are people who can't discipline themselves to play by the new rules, so they start trying to destroy the rules.
Eventually they figure out that through a hybrid of altruism and individualism they can convince people that the only good/right thing to do is to wreck the rules.
The civilization collapses, and is swallowed up by the failures around it, forgotten to history.
***
This is what is happening with political correctness in the West today.
A small group of people who have no skills other than socializing are trying to convince us to stop having standards and values as a civilization.
In the place of our values, they want "ideology," which basically means that hybrid of individualism and altruism.
The result will be breakdown to third-world levels of disorder, corruption, hygiene and dysfunction.
RIP USA
Futurist Traditionalism
Donation information is public. So are LinkedIN profiles. Not hard to put the two together and start a campaign against any company that employs someone who donated against gay marriage. Start with relatively senior people in other companies to get the ball rolling.
I can only imagine the out-cry if someone from the LGBT community had been chosen as CEO and people complained about it enough to get them to resign. But I doubt that would happen. Would it be ok for the supporters of Prop 8 to drive out an opponent of the bill?
If a CEO is hurting the face of the company he should resign but the only reason that happened in this case is because the opponents of Prop 8 made it untenable. I find it odd the opposition people were so threatened by his views with little other evidence.
I don't agree with the man but we are talking about a technology company, not a legislative body. I despise my CEO but I would never fight for his resignation unless he was killing the company.
-----
The people at Mozilla are hypocrites. For years they've been working for this guy. He was a fucking co-founder of Mozilla, then Lead Technologist, then CTO! He has always been one of their primary leaders. Where was the outcry all this time? Why did these people even join the Mozilla that he co-founded? Apparently it's fine to have an anti-gay boss as long as the world doesn't see him. All they care about is their own image.
Marriage itself is designed to make non-married people second class citizens. Wanting to get married, getting married or supporting the concept of marriage is working to actively take away rights from people who do not wish to live their life married. Just look at how many laws and regulations are designed to favour married couples. It's ridiculous.
...I mean, mainstream Islam is seriously anti-gay.
So all these folks hounding this guy for his (relatively trivial) political support for a cause 6 years ago must certainly then be ardent and vocal in their anti-muslim rhetoric?
Because hounding someone out because of their 'intolerant' views is one thing.
Picking on someone because you know they're not going to fight back just makes you a pussy.
-Styopa
Your observation jives with one of my own thoughts on the matter.
Many people have something which they incorporate as the center of their identity, be it their race, their ethnicity, their gender, their sexual proclivities, their religion, their choice of operating system, their athletic team, their place of origin, their family, their career, their hobby, and so forth. People who have convinced themselves that their very identity is tied first and foremost to one aspect of life have an incredibly strong, even visceral, reaction to anyone who expresses anything less than complete agreement with them. There is a term for this: zealotry. A zealot is unable to distinguish disagreement with their view from a personal attack or even hatred, as their very identity is melded with that for which they are zealous.
One of the most zealous sets of people we see today (at least in my myopic U.S.-centric personal experience) are homosexuals. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but my observation seems to be that this particular group of people has made homosexuality the defining feature of their life. As such, even minor disagreement with the idea that homosexuality is completely normal results in a strong adverse reaction and accusations of fear and hatred.
Personally I am saddened by this, that people have focused so strongly on one aspect of their identity so intensely that they view themselves first and foremost as that thing, rather than as a person, complete and whole. This is unhealthy, and when widespread (as we see today most strongly in both political zealotry and the zealotry of homosexuality) we end up with a fractious society that struggles to engage in a civil exchange of ideas, and at its worst can lead to quite literal violence and bloodshed.
Cyrano de Maniac
Can someone please post some meaningful, hopefully peer reviewed scientific evidence as to when and where we decided this was a fact?
You're on the Internet.. surely you can find some decent links to relevant scientific research and evidence. If not, here's a start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation
As for it being a fact, I don't think anyone can or should claim it as a fact, but the bulk of the research is leaning VERY strongly in that direction. In general, that usually means we're heading towards at least a de facto acceptance of it.
Specifically, when did we learn that homosexuality was genetic, ingrained, inescapable, and as intrinsically bound to us as our race?
If at any point it's in any way a choice, then that's not discrimination. That's a difference of opinion. You're entitled to that choice, but that choice is not a RIGHT.
No matter how much we do or don't like it, or how socially acceptable it has become.
I don't think the issue of government acknowledgement and support of something as important between any two people such as marriage is really related to whether homosexuality is or is not a choice. Even if it is a choice, I think that, if two people love each other enough to consent to and accept the benefits and responsibilities of marriage, at least as far as the government is concerned, then the government (and everyone else) should get the hell out from between them.
-SS "Teach the ignorant, care for the dumb, and punish the stupid."
The fact that he chose to step down should be the biggest indicator to the employees that they should persuade him to stay.
One call from Google and this guy's gone.
My other first post is car post.
Google basically was/is the sole supporter of Mozilla anyway.
My other first post is car post.
without being persecuted for that or even loosing their job.
Vocally objecting to something somebody does isn't persecution, and he chose to step down from his job. He didn't even try to smooth things over with the people who were upset.
This is true even if their beleifs happen not to be the same PeeCee bullshit that the liberals and media are trying to opressively brainwash everyone with.
Apparently in this thread, asserting that it's wrong to push legislation that strips rights away from an entire class of people is "PeeCee bullshit."
Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
There has been much news over the last week about Mozilla . .
See http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2014/04/03/3422750/mozilla-ceo-steps-down-after-backlash/
Here is my take.
Prop 8. was passed after an extremely deceitful campaign. The "Yes on 8" TV ads were blatant lies, and just horrible. Even some of my low-information, non-voting, gay friends who say them thought they should vote for prop 8 after seeing them.
Prop 8 was unlike all other state constitutional amendments against same-sex marriage, because it revoked rights that were already legally recognized.
I was deprived of the rights to marry my partner in California for many years, as many other LGBT couples were. Brendan Eich contributed $1000 towards that campaign. Unlike the 52% of the California electorate who voted for Prop 8 in 2008, this contribution was not the mere expression of an opinion, but something he actively did to influence the result of the referendum that stripped me and others of rights. While the Supreme Court declared in "Citizens United" that money is speech, I don't accept that.
I cannot simply ignore that he made that this contribution. Neither do I think the rest of the world can. I think some backlash against Brendan Eich is entirely warranted.
Whether backlash against him should translate to a Firefox boycott is much more debatable. For better or worse, a CEO represents the corporation, and his political opinions cannot be merely considered private matters. I believe CEOs should be held to a higher standard than lower-level, non-management positions. In this particular case, Brendan Eich was already in a high-level position, as a co-founder of Mozilla, and previously CTO. He was not recently hired, but merely internally promoted to CEO. His "Yes on prop 8 "donation was uncovered years ago, and did not make headlines as big then as now. The Mozilla board probably underestimated how big of an issue this would become after his promotion.
There is no evidence that he has taken discriminatory actions against Mozilla LGBT employees in the past. He has promised that he would not do so either as CEO in the future.
However, he has never publicly discussed his reasons for funding Prop 8 in the past, and there is no evidence that he has changed his mind on the subject. If he did, I believe he would have told the world already, and ended the controversy already.
In my mind, it is difficult to reconcile having funded Prop 8 and not being an anti-gay bigot. While many were deceived by their churches and very strongly encouraged to fund Prop 8, we don't know if that was the case here. I believe he would have said so as well if this was the case. That leaves with him having been and still being an anti-gay bigot as the sole explanation for the funding Prop 8. He is certainly entitled to his bigoted beliefs. But free speech under the First amendment only means it is free of repercussions from the government, not from individual citizens. A boycott certainly falls under free speech as well. Several Mozilla employees have called for him to step down from his CEO role last week.
I'm a long-time contributor to the Mozilla project, including 9 years working on the NSS security library - but never as a Mozilla employee. I certainly don't want to see the Mozilla project disappear into oblivion. I am glad the controversy ended, before the damage to Mozilla and Firefox became irreparable. Having Brendan step down from the CEO role was the best outcome.
Of course, Brendan's $1000 contribution towards Prop 8 was relatively small, considering the $40 million+ spent on each side. I incidentally also donated $1000 to "No on Prop 8" - the same amount he gave to "Yes on 8". But I'm proud of having done so. .
Other CEOs have contributed to anti-gay causes, even in tech . When AOL acquired Netscape, Steve Case donated millions to anti-gay organizations, all the while paying Netscape/AOL employees to contribute to the Mozilla project
And obviously, companies like Chik-Fil-A, Barilla, Wal-Mart, Exxon, and their
-- Julien Pierre http://www.madbrain.com/blog
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I'm not going to acknowledge that.
If someone is on record as not only saying, but actively paying to support making sure a group of people enjoy fewer civil liberties than another, and that person's *job* is managing people, some of whom are in that group?
In that case, I don't think it's bigoted to question whether they are capable of perfoming that job well.
That's not bigotry. That's common sense.
And to heck with 2008, while we're at it. If his suport for treating people equally had changed in the past six years, he had more than enough opportunities, including the CNET interview less than 72 hours ago, to not directly avoid answering that question.
I'm a nature photographer.
If he was CEO of Coca-Cola, nobody would've really cared that much about his views on same-sex marriage. But in the tech industry, where there is a disproportionate number of gay, lesbian and transgender workers, saying to them, "I don't think you should be able to marry your partner" is not a great career move.
Yes, when he was CTO people cared less -- but CTO is not CEO, and CTOs are expected to be assholes. When he shifted from second to first place and became the face of the company, his past views then became a serious and unacceptable issue.
So it was only a matter of time before he would be forced out. And yes, there will still be all kinds of fallout, since he put himself under scrutiny. The tech community is a bit strange that way, but it is how it is.
Here in the real world, communism just means means that the state controls your life
You guys have no idea what the communist beast can become unless you were born into one.
Communism in essence means that the state has the ultimate right to decide who to live, who to die, without having to provide any explanation, period.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
That said, Democratic Socialism has been shown to work
Are you sure you know what you are talking about ?
"Democratic Socialism" is an oxymoron, something that nature forbids, something so existentially awkward it won't be able to survive by itself.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
The only way this statement would make the least bit of rational sense is as an apology for capitulating to the mob who called for Eich's head.
But sadly, that isn't how this statement was intended.
I'm genuinely disgusted that the Mozilla Foundation would behave this way. How can I trust a group to produce valid products when they have no integrity?
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
PS. Don't let the door hit you on your pompous asses as you leave.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
I know the overwhelming majority of posts here seem to be about this being a sad day for freedom of speech. But nobody has taken away Mr Eichs right to speak.
A large group of users (and donors) have, however, made it clear that they may want to excercise their right to use and donate to whatever they want, and Mr Eichs campaigning and donating to remove people's rights may impact on that decision.
Given that Mr Eich was the CEO and not some low-level employee, it is much harder to separate his personal beliefs from that of the organisation. Furthermore, a lot of donors may be uncomfortable with the idea that their donations may well go towards funding campaigns for anti-Gay legislation. Yes, that is always a possibility as employees of an organisation are allowed to do what they want with their salary, but nobody would be as well-enumerated and as public as Mr Eich.
One of the most zealous sets of people we see today (at least in my myopic U.S.-centric personal experience) are homosexuals. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but my observation seems to be that this particular group of people has made homosexuality the defining feature of their life.
I think you're wrong here, and overgeneralizing, remember in any movement the zealots stand out because they work the hardest to be seen. Think of religion, which Muslims stand out the most? Which Christian church stands out more, the Westborough baptist church, or the one making food baskets for homeless people down the road?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
You reap what you sow. That guy meddled with private issues with prop 8 and decided that he did not want others to get benefits they should be awarded in a society which gives equal coverage by law. And now he got beaten the same way by having his private stuff smeared on his face. How does this shit sandwich taste like, mr bigot CEO ?
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Isn't it? " (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, ..."
HAL 7000, fewer features than the HAL 9000, but just as homicidal!
Balancing that, of course: "Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein."
And the right to form a family is fundamental. Ethics is complicated.
HAL 7000, fewer features than the HAL 9000, but just as homicidal!
I have done precisely that. I have never seen such a deplorable display of intolerance and bigotry until I saw how he was treated for expressing his absolutely-protected right to freedom of speech and expression.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and nobody should have to leave their completely unrelated job because of how they voted.
Shame on the gay community for this. Absolute shame.
The backers and financiers of Prop 8 were not even Californians, FFS. They were citizens of Utah; specifically, members of the Mormon church, meddling in the affairs of another state.
Well, any person, gay or not, who agreed that Eich should quit. Lots of gay people are not OK with how he was treated.
it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
I have never seen such a deplorable display of intolerance and bigotry until I saw how he was treated for expressing his absolutely-protected right to freedom of speech and expression.
Seriously? What exactly did they do to him? As far as I can tell, they complained loudly on the internet. Also, some people signed a petition saying they wouldn't use Firefox as long as he represented it. That's it.
He hasn't been physically harassed. He wasn't fired; he chose to step down. Heck, nobody even donated money to an organization dedicated to stripping his legal rights away. That would be some bigotry!
But you have never seen "such a deplorable display of intolerance and bigotry"? Where do you live?
Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
IMHO, you are mistaken. Correct if I am wrong, but I don't remember many incidents where gays shoot, bomb or beat with baseball bats their opponents or non-gays, because they are not gays. However, we have many other groups which use that kind of violence towards groups they oppose, including gays. I would call persons who use or just silently support that kind of violence, as zealots.
And if you are not not a member of some group which is facing strong discrimination, violence and persecution, I think it is quite hypocrite to call members of that kind of groups as zealots, when they non-violently oppose their bad treatment.
Everyone has seen what this topic has done to people. Flame wars, calling people reprehensible when they are obviously not bad human beings. Everyone hating someone else for their views and life choices. I honestly think most people have a religious problem mixing with a societal one. Once again, 'Marriage' should be a religious ceremony, and Unions should be legal rights. And legally everyone is held to the same standard. We've backed ourselves into this corner by saying that people should be married (see tax law, hospital rules) so we can't just get rid of it. But since laws can change a lot easier than the church, why don't we just change the wording? You don't force people to change their views, you don't force religion to change, and then you can honestly see who the people are who really do just want to deny freedom of choice to human beings.
I really wish you'd be more specific. There are a lot of problems, systemic and otherwise Obama has some(or even a lot) of culpability in continuing and even starting, but to suggest it's identical to the kind of intentional hate-driven policies that drive our local brand of neo-nationalist theocrats is a bit misleading.
Welcome in the 2014 - the Freedom of Speech is dead.
I use Mozilla since its first days, when Phoenix (later Firefox) was only usable browser on Linux.
I was always trying to support it, now it's just another evil company, just like Microsoft of Apple.
Why do you believe he was asked to resign? Everything I've seen indicates that this was his decision.
Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
In protest to the intolerant behavior of Mozilla and some of its employees who hounded their CEO out of his position, I have uninstalled Mozilla products from my computers. As the "it guy" for my family, I am encouraging all my family and friends to do likewise. As the owner of a software company, I will direct our products to encourage our customers to use . I am against intolerance of a person's honest opinion. We, as a society, haven't learned to respect the sincere opinion of people when we disagree with that opinion. We will suffer the consequences of that behavior just as we suffered the consequences of that behavior in the past.
When your argument relies on the definition of tradition, you've lost. It was traditional to own slaves and die of disease when you were 28. Either you are for those, too, or you are a hypocrite trying to find any reason at all to excuse your bigotry.
Yes, thank you for your contribution, Mr. Eich. Best of luck in your future endeavors.
>> push legislation that strips rights away from an entire class of people
Being able to legally register as someone married to someone else of the same sex is not generally recognised as a "right".
In fact many if not most think its a "wrong".
>> he thinks that a group of people doesn't get to do something.
Incorrect. Whether some groups of people are more or less likely to have the desire to marry someone of the same gender is irrelevant to an equality argument. The point is, there actually is equality currently because the existing law applies equally to everyone.
>> my argument is that everyone should be treated equal.
You should be happy then as they already are:
Regardless of your colour, gender, sexuality or race, you can't legally register as being married to someone of the same sex unless you live in a state that has already legally recognised same-sex marriage.
So, it's OK to drive a guy out for supporting a belief shared by 40+ percent of Americans? Is it then OK for folks who believe as he does to fire all those on the other side?
Where does that end? Let's BURN THE WITCH!
READ the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the other amendments! http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/const.html
Who here is for intimidation and bullying people who speak freely, of their own accord, against things you don't like to hear? Is this what it has come? I don't like what you say so therefore I'm going to make you pay? This isn't the America I grew up in. This is more like a mob and the last time I looked, we looked down on the mob mentality as being venal and troglodyte. If you don't like or are offended at what someone says, then don't support them or their product, but the this makes the gay rights movement look like its nothing more than a knee-breaking, intimidation, protection racket. This give fuel to the fire that The Velvet Mafia is legit. Is it?
Marriage is not a "minor disagreement." Those who oppose same sex marriage do so on some variation of the theme that marriage is a cornerstone of our society that will be substantially damaged if people with the same naughty parts are allowed to participate in it. You can't argue that and then turn around and criticize the people they're trying to exclude for getting too worked up about it.
There's nothing insightful about this post. Furthermore, oh_my's post might have been a bit snyde, bit it definitely was not trolling. Let's get our act together shall we,,,
Dear Microlimp: I give you 2 valid product keys for win7 and you reject both of them. Piss off you wankers!!!
Would you make the same demand of political conformity for the figurehead of an organization who donated $1000, 5 years ago, to the side you disagree with, in a political campaign regarding abortion, the death penalty, censorship of pornography, religious freedom, or other controversies where one (or both) side alleges to be defending human rights? If so, that would be a massive boycott... And if not, why not?
And... it looks like you don't really have an argument. I win this one.
Futurist Traditionalism
Also Godwinned in 1. Clearly you don't have an argument either.
Keep in mind that most of what you bemoan as "bigotry" existed for thousands of years, all over the earth, before your "Enlightenment" values.
Now, as modern society continues to fall apart internally and has persistent problems that it cannot address, it's clear that the ancients were right and people like you -- pompous jerks who think emotion is a substitute for logic, and who just want a reason to be better than realists like me -- have been wrong all along.
As your society fails, you'll be first against the wall. And the best part is that it won't be me doing it.
Futurist Traditionalism
Welcoming contributions regardless of religious views doesn't mean welcoming regardless of actions taken which are justified by religious views. Otherwise that's just carte blanche. Somebody who bombs abortion clinics, for instance, is not an acceptable employee.
Obviously Mr. Eich's actions were way less dramatic than bombing an abortion clinic. That's why people aren't calling for his arrest or anything like that.
That's like saying that women always had the same right to vote as men: one vote per penis.
Another perspective is that Men are denied a right extended to women, the right to marry men. Women are denied a right extended to men, the right to marry women.
No, it's two lessons.
The first lesson learned here is that giving money to block things like gay rights and equality will haunt your career.
The second lesson learned here is that if you are a big corporation, you now need to be very careful not to hire someone that has spent money on blocking gay rights.
All in all this means that a lot less money will be spent on blocking gay rights, and probably a lot less money in blocking a lot of other good things as well.
It might suck for Eich, but meddling like that with peoples life might bite you in the end, even if he's ok now (is he?). Things shouldn't be without consequences just because your rich and in the CEO-sphere, quite the opposite, I would say.
I have not seen this Mccarthyism applied to abortion, the death penalty, censorship of pornography, or other controversies in which one (or both) side claims it is about rights. For example, in the abortion controversy, one side claims to be fighting for the recognition of the human right to life (the most important human right) while the other claims to be fighting for the woman's right to her own body (a very important human right indeed). Yet I don't see any figurehead resigning because they donated $1000 to NARAL, 5 years ago. It seems to be accepted that a person's private political activism, done off-work, quietly, not using the company brand, and not against the company core mission, is their own choice. This should apply to the homosexuality controversy too. Ideas need to be debated on their merits, not on reward and punishment.
Political donations below a certain limit (say, half a minimum wage) should be allowed to be anonymous. The ballot is secret for a reason, and small donations should be secret too (except for aggregate statistics).