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 ..."

Comments

I think this is bullshit

[samantha]

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.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[Kaenneth]

Same, I disagree with him, but supporting freedom of speech is bigger than any one issue.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[galloog1]

He and mozilla made a business decision. It didn't matter what his feelings were on the topic; all that mattered was what it would do to the organization and its mission. While I will defend to the death anyone's right to say what they want regardless of if I agree with them I definitely do not blame Eich for it. I blame OkCupid and others instead.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[TheGratefulNet]

complete and utter intolerant bullshit.

its not wrong to be intolerant of intolerance.

no one in modern times (in a western world) would think its ok to underpay women just because they are women. no one would think its ok to pay less based on skin color. why is it 'just another way to think' when its about giving (or more accurately, denying) equal rights to same-sex couples?

its wrong to deny people basic rights based entirely on religion,.

I feel happy that people have pushed such a backward thinking person out of a position of high power. good for mankind! yay! there's still some hope for us, yet.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[DaHat]

its not wrong to be intolerant of intolerance.

Then at least acknowledge that the boycott push was an act of active and outright bigotry when Eich had (past tense) done something that some might see as intolerant, the response to him was far far worse than anything he'd done... and worse sets a chilling prescient for future attacks on those who dare to hold an opposing view.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[DaHat]

Didn't you get the memo? Your right to protest or have a contradictory view is only protected if it is accepted by a big enough mob or those in power.

Disagree? The IRS will be auditing you shortly...

Re:I think this is bullshit

[im_thatoneguy]

What about my freedom of speech to not donate to an organization headed by someone with whom I disagree?

What about the freedom of hundreds of employees to feel uncomfortable working for someone who is advocating against you? What about the freedom of workers to quit and find new companies where they are more welcome?

Freedom goes both ways. In this instance it's one CEO or thousands of users and employees.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[DaMP12000]

Freedom of speech does not mean free from consequences. Freedom of speech does not mean unconditional support. It means that you have the right to say what you want, and that you should not be persecuted for it.
Now, as consumers of a product, it is our right to not use/buy the product to not financially support acts that go against our beliefs and moral stances (just like we choose to buy organic, or buy american, or buy fair trade, etc.)

Re:I think this is bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Same, I disagree with him, but supporting freedom of speech is bigger than any one issue.

Why do so many confuse freedom of speech with freedom from criticism?

Re:I think this is bullshit

[vux984]

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.

So where do you draw the line?

Lets just Godwin it right off the bat and get it over with; if he were openly a Nazi, funding white supremacy, attacking the jews and blacks right to own property etc... everyone at Mozilla should just show up to work because its no business of theirs what their boss does off the clock? All Mozilla's customers should just keep using the software, because its no business of theirs?

The reality is that what he stands for offended a lot of people.

The CEO is the face of the company.

  If you are seriously disappointed that it culminated in people non-violently making it heard that they did not wish to work for this guy, or support a company this guy was the head of then I have to say I'm disappointed in YOU.

The world needs more of this not less.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[Ralph Wiggam]

That's an excellent comparison....as long as you know absolutely nothing about Joe McCarthy.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[mikelieman]

Erlich's "religious freedom" ends at the perimeter of his own self.

The moment he tried to apply his cognitive framing TO OTHER PEOPLE, he went off the rails.

If he contributed to islamic organizations opposing freedom of women to drive or appear in public without hajib, would that be OK?

Re:I think this is bullshit

[MightyMartian]

I'm not clear. When did freedom of speech extend to the operations of a private business?

In a way, this is no different than being fired for making embarrassing statements on Twitter. You have your right to speak your mind, what you don't have the right to do is force the rest of the world to ignore what you've said.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[blueturffan]

its not wrong to be intolerant of intolerance.

Thank you for saying this. I've been turning the other cheek for far too long. I'm tired of being tolerant of those that are intolerant of my deeply-held religious convictions. I'm out for retribution now. There will be BLOODSHED TONIGHT!

I feel happy that people have pushed such a backward thinking person out of a position of high power. good for mankind! yay! there's still some hope for us, yet.

Oh...I see, your whole "intolerant of intolerance" only applies to those you happen to agree with. Bummer.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[blueturffan]

its wrong to deny people basic rights based entirely on religion

Like denying someone the right to remain in a job based on their religious beliefs?

Re:I think this is bullshit

[assertation]

His freedom of speech wasn't taken away. He can still say what he wants and contributes to the causes he wants. It is a matter of other people exercising their freedom to do the same and choose a browser for any reason they prefer.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[jellomizer]

The problem is people get outraged over everything that doesn't fit their image of their world.

When people think Mozilla, they think Open Source and a bunch of Liberal Personalities who will align all things that we think is Liberal. So when we find a guy who has a conservative bone in his body, we get all outraged over it.

Conservative groups have similar problems too. A religious charity had to back track on allowing Married Gays from volunteering. Because the conservative groups were just so angry about this conservative group they support to have a more progressive idea in their plan.

The thing is, if you take the script away on what is conservative and liberal. You will find that most people are often a mixture of Conservative and Liberal. And often what really makes them identify with one particular camp is only a small subset of issues that very important to them, the rest they are willing to flipflop to say in the group.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[Kaenneth]

I'm not willing to vilify someone for voting.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[JDG1980]

I'm not clear. When did freedom of speech extend to the operations of a private business?

A majority of people in modern-day America work for corporate entities of some kind. If you argue that free speech should only be protected against the government and not against employers, then you are in effect saying that a majority of people shouldn't have any free speech protections at all.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[Culture20]

What if he had said, "blacks don't deserve the right to vote"?

I would have said "Mr. X is wrong in his view, but his company makes a mighty fine browser."
Now if Mozilla had started using HP webcams for facial recognition to determine who can and can't use Firefox, then I'd change my tune about whether the company's product should be boycotted.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

If they're uncomfortable, they're being childish. For one thing, diversity means being around people who disagree with you. And as long as they're not directly being a dick to you, you're supposed to exhibit some degree of tolerance, especially in the workplace.

Second, it's not like the man is a skin-head. He donated $1,000 to a Prop 8 fund. Maybe the guy is a Mormon. I dunno.

What if he was a communist party member? Shouldn't the 100s of millions of deaths directly attributable to the rise of communist party rule be a little more cause for concern then whether states should accept homosexual marriages? Of course not... that would require some rational thought and reflection. Or, maybe, I dunno... supporting a political party or campaign doesn't mean your motives are nefarious and harmful (even though their effect might cause harm in actuality).

Re:I think this is bullshit

[MickyTheIdiot]

Bigotry? Really?

They didn't think someone that contributed to something that they considered anti-human rights should be the head of an open source organization and they voted with their feet. They didn't go to a legislature and say that Eich and all the other people that gave to this cause should have rights taken away. That's what the anti-gay factions are doing at the moment as they keep losing ground on this issue.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[Desler]

You mean like how the right wingers boycotts TV/radio shows/movies and threaten sponsors when something is done that they don't like? What's good for the goose and all that jazz.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[Kremmy]

The media frenzy conveniently ignores that Brendan Eich's name is on the foundations of the modern web. If we were to demonize this man's contributions to the world as we know it today the way that they've demonized him as the CEO, say goodbye to the technology that makes it possible to spread the word in the way that they have.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[Stormy Dragon]

If he'd said any of that at work, you'd have a point. But think of the precedent here. Do you want your employer monitoring your political views outside of work and firing you if they think one of your opinions could prove embarassing to the company in the future?

Re:I think this is bullshit

[Wdomburg]

If Eich is a "shitty person" for his position in 2008, than so is Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Bill Cliton, Bill Richardson, Harry Reid, John Edwards (okay ... I'll give you that one)...

Re:I think this is bullshit

[DaHat]

Would you call it "just an opposing view" if it were something else?

Unlike same sex marriage proponents who call it a 'right' that they are being 'denied'... they do not face criminal prosecution for them living their lives within the current system.

I however am in a community that has politicians from time to time trying to crack down on, even criminalizing previously legal activity or objects which centuries of legal precedent has codified as an explicit right that shall not be infringed.

So while I am a much bigger target for much more hostile politicians... yes, I call it 'just an opposing view' and work to defeat them at the ballot box every 2-4 years as well as in-between.

What if he had said, "blacks don't deserve the right to vote"?

When?

*If* he'd said it in the 1840's... that'd be a pretty common view and chances are I wouldn't care much... but then there would also be the issue of how I would know he said it.

*If* he said that last week... I'd put him in the same category I do the KKK, Democrat party and NAMBLA... groups I am not going to do any business with... but not waste my time to advertise that fact, figuring they will do a good enough job of it themselves.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Freedom of speech does not mean free from consequences. Freedom of speech does not mean unconditional support.
It means that you have the right to say what you want, and that you should not be persecuted for it.

Now, as consumers of a product, it is our right to not use/buy the product to not financially support acts that go against our beliefs and moral stances (just like we choose to buy organic, or buy american, or buy fair trade, etc.)

You are right, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. However, I'd argue that there is a difference between spouting a view in a public forum and supporting a cause through what should be an anonymous donation. Should I be persecuted for voting Democrat? What about voting for or giving money to gay marriage? It cuts both ways remember.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[Desler]

and worse sets a chilling prescient for future attacks on those who dare to hold an opposing view.

Nope, that precedent wad already set long ago by all the right wing groups who do the same protesting and boycotts against people who do and say thing they dislike.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[im_thatoneguy]

You're free as an *employer* to say whatever you want. And your employees are free to leave and your customers are free to stop doing business with you.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[sjames]

I am, in some cases. For example (and because these discussions have gone on long enough", I would be perfectly willing to vilify someone who voted to exterminate the Jews.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[JDG1980]

What if he had said, "blacks don't deserve the right to vote"?

If someone said that in Alabama in 1957, would it be justified to deny them employment for the rest of their life even if they changed their mind after the Civil Rights Act passed?

Publicly acceptable positions on gay marriage are changing quickly. In 1996, Congress overwhelmingly passed, and President Clinton signed, a bill (DOMA) banning recognition of gay marriage across state lines. 10 years after that, few Democratic politicians, at least outside the most conservative states, would defend that position. But views changed slowly. In 2004, when running for the Senate, Barack Obama said that he thought marriage should be between a man and a woman. He said in 2010 that his views were "evolving", and at that point said he supported civil unions. Shortly afterward he came down on the side of supporting gay marriage without reservations.

The point is that this is an issue on which decent, well-meaning people have disagreed. To the extent that there is a majority consensus, it has only formed recently. Going back and retroactively persecuting people for their views before the consensus formed seems grossly unfair.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Being able to appear in public and being entitled to not be a slave to their husbands is a basic human rights. Getting a government stamp on a piece of paper and getting tax breaks aren't basic human rights.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[DaHat]

Denying rights isn't worse? Wow.

Do you really want to play that game?

His $1000 donation did not deny anyone anything, it did however assist an organization which could be seen to try to 'deny rights'... that group and it's side lost.

Instead, we have a group of sour winners lashing out against not only those who lost, but the (previous) supporters of those who lost, even seeking to deny them the rights.

Based on the previous decisions of the Mozilla board, based on his work history, Eich had every right to be CEO of the foundation... a right that he has now been stripped of based on this mob mentality.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[mi]

A majority of people in modern-day America work for corporate entities of some kind. If you argue that free speech should only be protected against the government and not against employers, then you are in effect saying that a majority of people shouldn't have any free speech protections at all.

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?

Re:I think this is bullshit

[pecosdave]

Or how the left keeps threatening/trying to bring back the "Fairness Doctrine" because they don't like the fact AM Radio is dominated by right wingers?

Re:I think this is bullshit

[im_thatoneguy]

And as long as they're not directly being a dick to you, you're supposed to exhibit some degree of tolerance, especially in the workplace.

I would say that if you are Gay and would like to receive the government benefits associated with a marriage then giving $1,000 to stopping you would fall into the category of "Being a dick to you".

Second, it's not like the man is a skin-head.

Skinheads think blacks are inferior and bad for society.
Homophobes think gays are inferior and bad for society.

So yes it is like he's a skin-head.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[Microlith]

I see you're pushing this nonsensical argument over and over again.

the boycott push was an act of active and outright bigotry

It's not bigotry. It's a boycott against what is tantamount to hypocrisy.

the response to him was far far worse than anything he'd done

Was it? He doesn't get to be CEO of Mozilla. Whereas he publicly supported a push for an amendment that maligned a section of society and donated to a politician who was all about maligning people he disliked.

and worse sets a chilling prescient for future attacks on those who dare to hold an opposing view.

No, it says that organizations like Mozilla, that pride themselves in being very socially liberal and freedom/privacy focused should look more closely at the people they're thinking of giving the very public title of CEO, and not pick people with very public stances that are antithetical to that of the organization.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[DaHat]

Opposing views to basic human rights? Yeah, it is really chilling to attack those.

I take it you feel the same way about laws which seek to diminish the second amendment which in part codifies the basic human right of self-defense?

Re:I think this is bullshit

[JWW]

No, no, no. First you vilify your opponent then you Godwin them!!

You've done it completely backwards!!

Re:I think this is bullshit

[Kaenneth]

Welcome to IBM, Kodak, Volkswagen, Bayer, Siemens, Cola-Cola, Ford, Chase Bank, Random House...

All companies that is some way supported the Nazis

Re:I think this is bullshit

[hawguy]

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.

I am straight (though I'm not sure that sexual orientation really matters since it's a matter of supporting human rights -- I could be against homosexuality yet still support homosexual marriage) and I think that if you don't believe in someone's views (especially a public figure like the CEO of a well known organization), you definitely should speak out against his views and not support his product.

Everyone should have the right to support whatever cause they want to support, just like everyone should have the right to *not* support that cause or the people that support it or even outright protest it. Some supporters of gay marriage have also faced outrage and boycotts, so why should opponents of gay marriage not expect the same? Or should we all just keep quiet when some cause offends us?

Re:I think this is bullshit

[oh_my_080980980]

It's pretty easy when you don't do any research.

He donated money to a cause that tried and succeeded in passing proposition 8 that denied right to people.

And if a corporation decided it's in the best interest to give the CEO the boot do to public outrage, they can do that. Happens alot. I don't hear you morning the loss of GM's CEO.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[DaMP12000]

Should I be persecuted for voting Democrat? What about voting for or giving money to gay marriage? It cuts both ways remember.

You can do what you want, but you have to understand the consequences of your actions. It is my absolute right to not support you if you stand for an opinion contrary to mine.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[mrchaotica]

Unlike same sex marriage proponents who call it a 'right' that they are being 'denied'... they do not face criminal prosecution for them living their lives within the current system.

That makes me wonder if any gay couple has been prosecuted for tax evasion due to attempting to file "married filing jointly." Or for trespassing/disorderly conduct/any catch-all offense when trying to visit their [not-legally-recognized] spouse in the hospital. Or with fraud or whatever when trying to exercise power of attorney in each others' name. Etc.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[Kielistic]

Sure. But you lose your right to claim to be pro free speech after advocating a boycott as an attempt to silence someone exercising their free speech.

You beat bad ideas with good ideas. Not censorship.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[AK Marc]

So I shouldn't have the freedom of speech to denounce those who take actions I disagree with?

That is the question here. Whether the people had the right to complain about the actions of another. Anything else is a distraction to the issue. It isn't about gay rights, or human rights, just free speech and nothing but.

Do I have the right to complain about someone who took an action I didn't like? The "pro-free speech" crowd claims no, and the "anti-free speech" crowd says yes.

It gets so confusing.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[Cpt_Kirks]

Free Speech took a shot to the head. Political Correctness bullshit seems to trump it, every damn time.

Frankly NOW I'm thinking of totally dumping Firefox.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[CanHasDIY]

Sure. But you lose your right to claim to be pro free speech after advocating a boycott as an attempt to silence someone exercising their free speech.

You beat bad ideas with good ideas. Not censorship.

So, if a local business decides to ban smoking, and I decide to stop spending my money there because I disagree with their policy, I'm "silencing" or "censoring" them?

Bullshit. Free speech is a two way street, and if you're going to exercise your right to it, you have to understand that other people might react in kind.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[Dixie_Flatline]

How can he file a defamation lawsuit? The thing that OKCupid said WASN'T A LIE.

Defamation requires a FALSE statement. He donated the money. It's HIS FAULT that he's a homophobe that wants to deny other people's rights. He didn't apologise for past behaviour, or seek to remedy it.

His opinion is his own, but he tried to have his opinion written into law, which isn't okay with me when it runs contrary to fundamental human rights. You can't deny a segment of the population rights and privileges just because they were born a certain way.

He can't win shit. He has no business feeling angry at anyone other than himself.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[jeffmflanagan]

>there is no justification for equating the regular, children-producing marriage and gay-unions.

Are you sure that you're not an ignorant social conservative, rather than a libertarian. That's the argument that toxic loons like Bryan Fischer try to peddle. It's easily shot down by the fact that plenty of people marry and don't have children, so most people wouldn't try to argue it outside of far-right sites where the average IQ is well below room temperature.

> Indeed, no culture in the history of humanity has done so

That's exactly what a social conservative would say. If you're really a Libertarian, it's clear that you got that way via being a backward social conservative.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[Stormy Dragon]

I work with a number of people I don't particularly like. As long as they're doing their job and act professionally, I don't care. I'm not there to party.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

So what do you suggest? Making it illegal for people to boycott companies they disagree with?

Everyone's freedom of speech was protected here. He has a right to speak out against gay marriage. Private citizens have a right to boycott.

Suggest a remedy for that. Compelling people to buy products?

Re:I think this is bullshit

[Mashiki]

Funny how you break directly into an ad-hom right out of the gate.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[Ziggitz]

You seem to think that freedom of speech means "My words and actions shouldn't have any consequences."

Re:I think this is bullshit

[CanHasDIY]

Even if the government should recognize marriage at all (an assumption I, as a Libertarian, doubt strongly), there is no justification for equating the regular, children-producing marriage and gay-unions.

Didn't realize the legitimacy of my marriage was contingent on whether or not my wife and I decide to reproduce.

Oh, right, it's not. Marriage is quite obviously a business contract, once you put emotion aside.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[Stormy Dragon]

And conversely, we have the right to criticize your criticism.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[Mashiki]

You mean like how the right wingers boycotts TV/radio shows/movies and threaten sponsors when something is done that they don't like? What's good for the goose and all that jazz.

Want to really compare the numbers between the right wingers and left wingers on the issue? You'll find that the numbers are skewed left wing very quickly. You'll also find very quickly that government running as a handler for groups in the last 5 years with the help of organizations such as OFA and MM to boycott things has reached a fevered pitch. Toss in the "if you don't support it, you're a racist" I'm sure we can agree that it's all the same right?

Never mind either that we still haven't gotten to the bottom to the GP's post about the IRS directly targeting conservative groups. And that Lerner's probably going to end up in prison over it to protect whatever political master she's serving higher up in the chain. 5th not applying in her case.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[Microlith]

Please. He could have thumbed his nose at everyone and stayed in the CEO position. It would have damaged Mozilla, but he could have done it.

Like denying someone the right to remain in a job based on their religious beliefs?

He transitioned from mere "religious beliefs" to "actively acting against others" when he made those donations. He explicitly acted in support of forcing his religious beliefs on others.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[Aaden42]

you lose your right to claim to be pro free speech after advocating a boycott

This is so utterly false, I don’t even know where to start. Eich had every right to speak in support of Prop 8 or anything else he might like to, but I also have the right to express my distaste of his bigoted ideas by withholding my support of any organization which he runs.

I’ll defend to the death his right to *say* whatever he likes, but there’s no reason in the world I need to do business with someone whose views I consider to make them a reprehensible human being. The idea that not giving someone your money is equivalent to silencing their right to free speech strikes me as an incredible sense of entitlement. There’s nothing about the right to free speech that entitles you to say anything you want without consequences of having said it. Freedom of speech means the government can’t silence you, but that protection begins and ends with the *government*. How any individual chooses to interact with you as a result of *your* free speech is as much a matter of *their* free speech as you being free to say it in the first place.

There’s nothing about supporting free speech that requires me to also support every person who speaks an opinion I disagree with. By your logic, I should vote for a politician whose views I disagree with because if I voted against him, I’d be infringing on his right to free speech. That’s preposterous and misguided and flat out foolish.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[spire3661]

How does this tripe get insightful? NO ONE IS PROSECUTING this man. He stated an opinion and backed it up with money, lots of people found his position reprehensible and pointed out their displeasure. This displeasure was large enough to have him removed from Mozilla. Its not a witch hunt.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[Dixie_Flatline]

Oh Christ. Free Speech is fine. The government interfered with nothing. Just because he's allowed to say shit doesn't mean the world has to like it. He's an asshole if he thinks that a certain class of people deserve fewer rights than other people, and I wouldn't be any less condemning of his statements if he'd donated similar money to campaigns to remove rights from blacks, or asians, or any other minority group.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[spire3661]

Please explain how the government is limiting this man's speech. Oh they arent? Then its not a Free Speech issue, which only concerns itself with communication between you and your government.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[Dixie_Flatline]

Wait, so you think couples that are sterile or very old shouldn't be allowed to marry either?

If you disagree with that statement, you're actually just an asshole, you're not a libertarian. Marriage is a social construct that has very little to do with raising children in this day and age. I'm married, and we have no plans to have children ever. I don't see what that has to do with anything.

I agree that the government should have no say in who I have a relationship with, but as long as they do, they're obligated to apply their rules fairly across all groups of people, regardless of their skin colour, ethnicity, orientation, gender, etc.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[spire3661]

NO one is silencing him, Mozilla is simply removing their branded podium he was standing on. He is free to give as much money to hate groups as he wants.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[sjames]

Actually, he doesn't have much of a case for it since OkCupid hasn't lied about him. They did nothing to his reputation at all. They simply responded to his reputation.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[Kaenneth]

Political committees are required to request employer information from larger donors; it does not suggest endorsement.

per the FEC: http://www.fec.gov/pages/broch...

If you contribute more than $200 to a committee, the committee is required to use its best efforts to collect and publicly disclose on a financial report your name, address, occupation and employer, as well as the date and amount of your contribution.

This case is a good demonstration as to why anonymous contributions should be allowed.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[snakeplissken]

It was against the self-contradicting phenomenon called "gay marriage".

gay marriage is only 'self-contradicting' if marriage is defined as not involving same sex unions, marriage is a human invention, it does not arise from the facts of physics, chemistry, biology or any other natural process, neither does it arise from basic philosophical or ethical thought. a society is free to define 'marriage' how it likes. prop 8 was an argument about definitions, just because the proponents (not all though) claimed that god was on their side and that therefore 'marriage' was somehow akin to a physical property of the universe does not make it so.

snake

Re:I think this is bullshit

[Kielistic]

This issue is a large group of people attempting to put pressure on a company to get rid of an employee based on their personal views. I don't care what you do but trying to use your social clout to strong arm a group is something we've seen in the past. It's a dangerous road to go down and I know you'd agree if it was some powerful homophobic group putting pressure on a company for having a homosexual employee. Remember when the American government (your government I assume?) had to step in and put an end to voluntary racial segregation? Now that power roles are reversed you think that it is okay.

You should ease up on the strawman tactics at the end there. What you wrote had absolutely nothing to do with what I said.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[sstamps]

If you argue that free speech should only be protected against the government and not against employers, then you are in effect saying that a majority of people shouldn't have any free speech protections at all.

That's all the Freedom of Speech covers in the Constitution -- against the government denying it (and only in America and a handful of other countries with similar protections to boot). It doesn't apply to all other (private) situations, legally.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[Kaenneth]

No, this is getting the cook fired by claiming there is hair in your food, because you spotted an Obama sticker on his car in the parking lot.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[Grishnakh]

Exactly. Eich could shave his head and start calling for the return of slavery, and the government isn't going to do anything to him. But he's going to have a hard time finding a job after that. Some people seem to forget that we also have freedom of association, and that means we don't have to be nice to or accept bigots or other people we don't like.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[Bartles]

Yep. Basically, you are saying that the only safe opinion is empty opinion. I'll pass on your politically repressed society. I'll chose a liberal society any day over that.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[Minupla]

Unless US law is different then I'm aware of (and a quick bit of research suggests it is not) defamation (liable or slander) lawsuits require saying/writing something that is false. Here's the OKCupid statement:

"Hello there, Mozilla Firefox user. Pardon this interruption of your OkCupid experience.

Mozilla's new CEO, Brendan Eich, is an opponent of equal rights for gay couples. We would therefore prefer that our users not use Mozilla software to access OkCupid.

Politics is normally not the business of a website, and we all know there's a lot more wrong with the world than misguided CEOs. So you might wonder why we're asserting ourselves today. This is why: we've devoted the last ten years to bringing peopleâ"all peopleâ"together. If individuals like Mr. Eich had their way, then roughly 8% of the relationships we've worked so hard to bring about would be illegal. Equality for gay relationships is personally important to many of us here at OkCupid. But it's professionally important to the entire company. OkCupid is for creating love. Those who seek to deny love and instead enforce misery, shame, and frustration are our enemies, and we wish them nothing but failure.

If you want to keep using Firefox, the link at the bottom will take you through to the site.

However, we urge you to consider different software for accessing OkCupid:"

It seems to me that the statement consists of statements that in for far as the public record is concerned, are true. E.g. "Brendan Eich, is an opponent of equal rights for gay couples.", which is supported by the contribution that started this all; the rest of it appears to be statements that either relate to feelings of OK Cupid, or clearly deliminated opinions. IANAL, but I do spend a lot of time talking to them professionally, and I think it would actually be a very weak case for liable (which is what this would be, slander refers to the spoken word, liable to the written one).

You are welcome to opinions on how OKCupid handled this, but I think the argument that it's legally actionable is probably incorrect.

In brief, in order to be defamatory, a statement must be:

1) Public (e.g. someone had to have heard it other then the two parties)
2) False
3) Not an opinion
4) Damaging
(there's a couple of other items that have no baring in this case)

I think anyone reasonable could agree on 1 and 4, but 2 & 3 have larger hurdles.

Min

Re:I think this is bullshit

[Microlith]

But you lose your right to claim to be pro free speech after advocating a boycott as an attempt to silence someone exercising their free speech.

This line is bullshit. They did not attempt to silence him, they opposed his being appointed CEO. Please stop trying to equate the protests as an attempt at censorship, because it's not.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[QuantumPion]

Advocating a boycott is fine. Advocating an employee be fired as a punitive measure, when their job has nothing to do with the issue itself, is not fine.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[Kielistic]

You might have a point if Mozilla banned gay employees.

If someone that worked at a local business had the opinion that smoking should be banned would it be okay to try to force that company to fire them with your more populous opinion? How about if a local business employee thought that blacks should be able to drink at the same water fountain but the local community didn't like that idea so got the person fired?

I will not agree with the use of underhanded and immoral tactics just to get my way. It is wrong when others do it and it is still wrong even if the power dynamic has shifted and put you in the driver's seat. Bigotry cannot be fought that way.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[TsuruchiBrian]

Freedom of speech protects you from punishment by the government for your speech.

If you argue that free speech should only be protected against the government and not against employers, then you are in effect saying that a majority of people shouldn't have any free speech protections at all.

This is just false. The fact that you can be fired for saying something stupid, does not in any way diminish the fact that you can not be imprisoned for saying something stupid.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[AdamHaun]

His $1000 donation did not deny anyone anything, it did however assist an organization which could be seen to try to 'deny rights'... that group and it's side lost.

You know Prop 8 passed, right? Plunging thousands of gay and lesbian couples who had already married into years of legal limbo? Which was part of an ongoing movement to continue denying gay and lesbian couples legal recognition forever? And you're aware that that movement springs directly from millennia of unjustified prejudice and violent persecution that still lingers today, right? And that all of this deeply affects the lives of many Mozilla employees and Firefox developers? There's a larger context here, and none of that disappears just because a federal court throws out a law.

Eich had every right to be CEO of the foundation

Nobody has a right to a specific job. Especially a job that makes them the public face of an organization that relies on a large and diverse group of outside developers. Eich chose to be an oppressive bigot, and chooses not to apologize for it. That's his choice, but he doesn't get to dodge the consequences just because he's a good coder or manager.

The Mozilla Foundation board should have known better. This isn't a new criticism.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[QuantumPion]

Boycotting them is fine. Using public media outlets demanding the business owner be fired as a punitive measure is not.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[mellon]

Free speech is a constitutional restriction on the government. It does not mean that you are not subject to criticism. It just means the government can't stop you from speaking. That's _all_ it means.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[MrBigInThePants]

Bollocks.

Freedom of speech does NOT mean that you get to say whatever you want and safely escape any consequences no matter how bigoted or nasty you are.

It just means you get to say what you want in public.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[CanHasDIY]

No, this is getting the cook fired by claiming there is hair in your food, because you spotted an Obama sticker on his car in the parking lot.

He didn't get fired, he quit.

So, kinda completely different than the non sequitur you've posted here.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[AmiMoJo]

And as long as they're not directly being a dick to you

How is trying to get a law passed that bans you from marrying the person of your choice because you are homosexual not "directly being a dick to you"? It's a direct attack on the lives of gay people.

Free speech does not mean freedom from consequences or others reaction to them.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[TsuruchiBrian]

Freedom of speech means "My words will not have any consequences from the government (with a few exceptions)". Freedoms usually do absolve you of consequences, but the freedom of speech as defined by the constitution does not extend to to protecting you in every imaginable situation (e.g. it doesn't prevent your wife from divorcing you for calling her a whore), nor is it meant to. It has a very limited scope.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[Wookact]

I'll break it down for you.

Him giving money is considered speech. I do not like what he had to say so I uninstalled the products that his company makes. This is my form of speech. I at no time denied him or even tried to deny him of any rights. I just refused to support his views.

The freedom of speech does not protect someone from criticism or counter speech and to accuse those of us as enemies of freedom of speech for voicing our own opinions (counter opinions) is the height of hypocrisy.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[Wycliffe]

He stated an opinion and backed it up with money, lots of people found his position reprehensible and pointed out their displeasure. This displeasure was large enough to have him removed from Mozilla. Its not a witch hunt.

I think it's a witchhunt when someone is fired from a job for having an opinion that roughly 50% of the population has.
Regardless of which side you are on, gay marriage it is very much still a debatable issue. There is a reason that it
barely fails to pass in one area and then barely passes in another area only to be appealed and then appealed again.
The national jury is still trying to decide. It seems wrong to fire someone for having an opinion when the collective
whole is still trying to decide. Why should he be fired when approximately half of firefox's user base agrees with him?

Re:I think this is bullshit

[mellon]

Actually peer pressure is one of the ways that persecution stops. This is a classic example of peer pressure punishing someone for engaging in persecution of a minority. This is not analogous to having a disagreement about a matter of fact. This is a case where someone deliberately took action to make sure that someone he doesn't like wouldn't have the same rights he has.

So while I think the basic point you are making has some validity, the problem is that while I would not shun Brendan for actively supporting proposition 8, any more than I would shun someone who opposed freeing the slaves, it would definitely color my attitude toward that person, and the contexts in which I would trust that person to speak on my behalf.

The nature of leadership roles, such as CEO, is that the leader is not being hired solely for their ability to do a particular set of tasks. They are being hired to lead the organization. So a CEO who is willing to take away from others rights that he keeps for himself is simply not someone I'd want to work for. How do I know he's not going to do the same to me? And an organization looking for a CEO ought to be concerned about the direction in which that CEO would lead the organization.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[Dixie_Flatline]

Unlike him, I haven't contributed to any organisations that seek to remove anyone's rights, and certainly not HIS rights.

I don't have to support him or any company that he's the head of. He can have his opinions, but I'm not obligated to think Mozilla is wonderful no matter what.

There's a big difference between holding an opinion and trying to have your opinion written into law. I'm sure there are homophobes and bigots working at the company that I'm at. (In fact, I practically guarantee it.)

I don't think that people that hold those views should be in positions of authority. It gives the impression--rightly or wrongly--that the company tacitly supports his beliefs.

How many non-CEOs have you seen fired from their jobs because they've done something publicly embarrassing to the company that they work for? I don't see how a CEO should be above that. He's a lightning-rod for criticism (criticism that I think he deserves) and it's a distraction to the goals of Mozilla. Additionally, the LGBT people that work there are reportedly uncomfortable with someone like that heading the company, and I think it should be understandable why. His donation indicates that he thinks those people are second-class citizens--that they don't deserve the same full spectrum of rights that he does.

This is no different from someone donating to anti-civil-rights measures leading a company. I don't see why it's such a stretch to hold racists and homophobes to account for their opinions and actions. They're untenable positions and I won't support them.

I'm not trying to convince anyone that he's humanity's greatest monster, or that he's sub-human. I just don't think you should be able to walk around with abhorrent views like that and expect everyone to still venerate you as a great person.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[seebs]

You keep using words like "lynch" and "crucify", and those are really powerful emotional words... that are totally out of proportion to anything happening here.

If you were to claim that James Byrd had been lynched, that would be credible and reasonably consistent with the facts. Claiming that someone powerful and wealthy was "lynched" because people said they disapproved strongly of him spending large amounts of money trying to harm other people is really pretty much not the same thing at all.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[steelfood]

Public pressure managed to ruin a man's professional career due to his personal beliefs. McCarthy would be proud indeed.

And even better, he wouldn't have had to lift a finger today to get the same results.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[crunchygranola]

This issue is a large group of people attempting to put pressure on a company to get rid of an employee based on their personal views...

Odd, I thought being a CEO made you an employer, you know, one of those "job creators".

By the way - one point a lot of people seem to be missing here is that as CEO Eich would have the power to decide how the company he heads throws its weight around in the political arena - you know making political contributions, lobbying, filing amicus briefs, funding all manner of political foundations and front groups.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[NoKaOi]

there is no justification for equating the regular, children-producing marriage and gay-unions.

So then a heterosexual marriage that doesn't produce children, either because the couple is medically unable to or doesn't want to, should be treated equally to gay marriage, right? And therefore, if a non-child-producing heterosexual marriage is legal, then a gay marriage should be legal too, right?

Indeed, no culture in the history of humanity has done so — even those, who (like ancient Athens) were perfectly tolerant of homosexuality.

So what? You're saying that our culture should be just like historical cultures? We should have slavery? There should be no equal rights for women? It should be perfectly legal and acceptable to beat our children or wives bloody for misbehaving? We should be imprisoned for speaking out against the government? Also, there are plenty of things that apply to historical cultures that don't apply today. The most important in this case being population numbers. Back then, more people died from things like disease and war, so the members of that population had as many kids as they could in order to keep up their population numbers to grow their culture and prevent their culture from being wiped out (this can be seen in modern times by the growth of Mormonism). This doesn't apply to today, when our problem is overpopulation, not underpopulation.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[hydrofix]

Oh, for god's sake, don't you get it? All opinions are equally meaningless unless people actually react to them. The ultimate non-existence of freedom of speech would be a society, where speech and actions have no consequences. This time, the consequence of his actions was that the public saw him as unfit for CEO of Mozilla. No one has denied him the right to hold those views, and he has been very kindly offered a platform to express them. What you should take away from this, is that your political opinions are often of little importance when you are just another employee, but once you become the CEO, who is a public figure, you can expect heat from those who disagree with your opinions. Which you have an absolute right to. Just like those who disagree with you.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[CanHasDIY]

Well, the problem isn't so much the freedom as the principle. People want to do something that a huge number of people consider controversial. Someone uses their democratic right and votes against it. A different group of people publicly lynch that someone for taking an opposing view.

Oh, so they went to his office with torches and a gallows, drug him from his office, and publicly executed him?

Or is that last sentence just an example of confirmation-bias fueled hyperbole?

Let's re-word your post in a less biased manner, eh?

Well, the problem isn't so much the freedom as the principle. People want to do something that a huge number of people consider controversial. Someone uses their democratic right and votes against it. A different group of people use their democratic right and boycott the company he runs.

Ah, much better.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[Ralph Wiggam]

Obamacare allows everyone in the country to share ownership of the means of production? Sweet. I'm going to tour some of the factories that I'm now part owner of.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[seebs]

This is wrong in so many ways. We have always recognized at least some marriages which we knew perfectly well would never produce children, because children are only part of the point of marriage. The purpose of marriage is to create family relationships. That's useful for kids, but it's also beneficial to lots of other people. Furthermore, there have been plenty of places recognizing marriages between same-sex couples for years, and even if there weren't, so what? We are allowed to do new things if we think they're useful.

Mostly, it comes down to: No one is going to believe your feeble excuses, because we all know perfectly well that the people who don't think gays should be able to get married always just sort of happen to have a very noticeable personal hostility thing happening, even if they hide it somewhat, and that the arguments for that position are long-dead. The point at which several of the major former proponents of the position walked away because they realized that it was stupid and indefensible and motivated mostly by hatred was the point at which it stopped being a credible position to take.

Mostly, though, I think your analysis sucks because you're not considering the many non-child-related functions of having an institution for the creation of family ties.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[Wycliffe]

This is so utterly false, I don’t even know where to start. Eich had every right to speak in support of Prop 8 or anything else he might like to, but I also have the right to express my distaste of his bigoted ideas by withholding my support of any organization which he runs.

Yes, you have a right to boycott or even protest but a company shouldn't base their decision on what a vocal minority says.
At best, the people supporting gay marriage are roughly 50% based on current voting records but it's probably closer to 20% for,
20% against, and 60% don't really care either way so firing someone because 20% of the population complains that you
he didn't take their side seems silly.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[Dutch Gun]

Obamacare allows everyone in the country to share ownership of the means of production? Sweet. I'm going to tour some of the factories that I'm now part owner of.

Shared ownership of land/factories/etc is fairy-land communism that college professors dream of. Here in the real world, communism just means means that the state controls your life.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[TsuruchiBrian]

There is also no reason to assume that the sole purpose of marriage is to produce children. Also, marriages don't produce children. The biology of producing children is in no way dependent on the institution of marriage. Gay people are also perfectly capable of producing children and many do.

I also share your view that marriage should be completely separate from government. Marriage even in the legal sense entails a lot of things involving inheritance, hospital visits, power of attorney, alimony, taxes, etc. All of this stuff applies just as well to same sex couples. It doesn't really have anything to do with children. (which same sex couples can also have). There is no law forcing people to get married if they have kids. There is no law forcing married people to have kids.

And there is a very good reason to use the same legal construct (i.e. calling both same sex and heterosexual unions, marriages), because despite the claims, civil unions (which each state defines it's own way, if at all) do not confer the same rights as marriage. In the same way that separate but equal laws lead to anything but equality in the south during segregation, separate legal definitions for civil unions for gay people and marriages for straight people, leaves the door wide open for differences in the rights offered by these 2 institutions.

I don't care if certain churches refuse to consider gay marriages legitimate. I would actually prefer if marriage was removed from government influence altogether. But what we can't have is the government offering a right to one group of people and not another.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[PsychoSlashDot]

Free Speech took a shot to the head. Political Correctness bullshit seems to trump it, every damn time.

Frankly NOW I'm thinking of totally dumping Firefox.

Bullshit. Political correctness is referring to a gay man as "a person of alternate sexual proclivities". Political correctness is passing policies that mandate one fourth of your female workforce must be lesbians because one in four women have had a girl-girl experience.

This is a man who took a high-profile job and was outed as a bigot. A man who thinks that it's worth paying money to impose his opinions one where someone else sticks their dick. A man who doesn't believe that gay people are people. That's not rhetoric, that's the way it is. Being against gay marriage is almost always on the grounds that "marriage is a sacred bond between man and woman", directly indicating that any other coupling is wrong and bad, and that those who engage in such practices should be penalized by being denied the same rights hetero-married enjoy.

Modern, enlightened society caught up with this guy when he took a job with visibility. Sorry, but him and his cro-magnan-thinker buddies just aren't right for this kind of a job because they taint the brand they represent.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[NeutronCowboy]

It's not a dangerous road, it's how societies operate. As a matter of fact, it's the only way to actually build a society. Anything short of that is just pie-in-the-sky anarchism. As for your reverse example, that is exactly what's taking place in the US right now. They're free to do that, and I'm free to organize a counter boycott.

The alternative that you propose either requires an incredible restriction on speech and action, or requires a complete lack of interaction between any individuals. One is terrible, the other untenable.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[Wycliffe]

Obamacare allows everyone in the country to share ownership of the means of production? Sweet. I'm going to tour some of the factories that I'm now part owner of.

If that was the only thing communism was then communism would be great. Who wouldn't want an equal share of everything.
Actually communism is pretty great at the local level where you can kick someone out or they are free to leave.
Communism/Socialism doesn't scale though as at the national level there is no non-violent way to handle freeloaders
or people who cheat the system so you eventually end up with a bunch of rich people at the top taking advantage of
the system and a bunch of lazy people at the bottom taking advantage of the system.

And that's pretty much what we are starting to have in the USA too.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[steelfood]

You're thinking of a 1st amendment issue regardinig the government. Free Speech exists above anything written on a piece of paper.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[steelfood]

You seem to have fail at separating personal from professional.

It has everything to do with his personal beliefs.

If he had fired a bunch of LGBT-supporting employees at Mozilla, or defunded the LGBT club (if they have one) there, that would be crossing the line between personal and professional. Only then would all this outrage be justified.

Did he do anything like this during his short tenure? I certainly haven't heard.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[vux984]

Sure. But you lose your right to claim to be pro free speech after advocating a boycott as an attempt to silence someone exercising their free speech.

Wow. This is just nuts, and you got +5 for it too. That's even more nuts.

A boycott isn't an attempt to silence him.
It a show of "non-support".

The fact that I don't to watch Fox news (ie I boycott it), is not "censorship" by ANY reasonable definition.

You are being ridiculous by attempting to conflate "boycott" with "censorship".

Re:I think this is bullshit

[amicusNYCL]

Boycotting them is fine. Using public media outlets demanding the business owner be fired as a punitive measure is not.

What's the difference? Boycotts are usually publicized.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[Aighearach]

No, a witch-hunt would be if we didn't like him, and so we lied about what he said or set up an attack where loses his job if he did what we said, or if he didn't.

Roughly 50% of the population do blurt out offensive things that would negatively affect their career if they were a public figure. That is no surprise.

Probably well over 50% of the population blurts out idiotic nonsense that would get them fired if they were an engineer, too. Obviously a different set of idiotic nonsense, granted. But the average person does not have the skills or experience to be an engineer. Or a CEO. Part of being a CEO is to be the face of the organization. If you do anything that is high profile enough to be noticed by the public, that reflects on the organization. That is just part of being the public face of an organization.

Personally, I would never take that sort of job because I value privacy over money. But these are the sort of decisions a person makes in life.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[steelfood]

as CEO Eich would have the power to decide how the company he heads throws its weight around in the political arena - you know making political contributions, lobbying, filing amicus briefs, funding all manner of political foundations and front groups.

And yet, he has not had the opportunity to do any of these things before he was forced out. In fact, he's stated that nothing would change about Mozilla's stance towards the LGBT community and its issues. Yet he was judged not by his ability nor his performance, but by his beliefs. How is that not being bigoted?

Re:I think this is bullshit

[mellon]

Being able to inherit your partner's estate, and being able to make medical decisions for your partner when they are incapacitated, and being able to visit them when they are in the hospital and unconscious, are all basic human rights. Rights which used to be routinely denied gay couples, and still are in many states.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[xevioso]

Well, we don't actually know this. Lots of people here are saying "he wasn't fired, he quit" but the board may have told him "Quit or you'll be fired", which is pretty much the same thing.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[Yunzil]

Sorry, no. Free speech doesn't mean freedom from having to face the consequences of that speech.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[geekoid]

He wanted to use political force to deny rights to people.

So it's more then just an opinion.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[mellon]

The right to inherit property from a man to whom you are married, make medical decisions for them when they can't, and visit them at their bedside when they are dying, is not a right that is denied to all. It is a right that is denied only to men. The right to inherit property from a woman to whom you are married, etc., is not a right denied to all. It is a right denied only to women.

You could assert that I am using semantics to get around your argument, but your argument is a semantic argument, so I'm just rephrasing it in a way that illustrates that it is invalid.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[msauve]

"He wanted to use political force to deny rights to people. So it's more then just an opinion."

You don't know what rights are. Marriage, and the governmental advantages associated with it (such as lower tax rates), is a privilege. Whether hetero or homo, there is no "right" for anyone to get married, or to have the state recognize that marriage.

Furthermore, he was supporting his own opinion, which was not only with the side of the majority, but was related to a right we do have, the right to vote. Would you support firing the over 50% of California voters who supported Prop 8? (That's rhetorical - of course you would, you've shown yourself to be an intolerant bigot)

Re:I think this is bullshit

[Ralph Wiggam]

...or Totalitarianism, which is what he's actually describing.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[cheesybagel]

FWIW I also do not support the right of marriage for gay people. IMO it makes no sense. To have state protection against gay persecution is one thing I agree with but I do not think it is a good idea to provide ANY state incentive to be gay. Nothing forbids gay people from living together as is. They just do not get the legal and economic benefits of a traditional marriage. They do not provide any of the benefits of a traditional marriage either. What is the birthrate for gay couples? How is that going to help pay the Social Security debt? I could go on this subject.

If we ever get another World War I will be interested to see what will happen to all this idiot entitlement bullshit when the state realizes it does not have enough people of recruitment age.

Of course if you are interested in living in a dying nation carved up by Indians you are welcome to it.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[Copid]

The rules are the same for all — anybody is entitled to marrying one person of the opposite gender. Some people aren't able to use that right, but that's not a reason to redefine the meaning of marriage.

Not long ago, everybody had the same right to marry a person of the same race. Some people didn't want to make use of that right, and it caused a ruckus, and eventually we granted them some crazy new rights. Was Loving v. Virginia decided incorrectly? Was the system fair and equitable as it was before Loving, and were the agitators agitating over nothing?

Re:I think this is bullshit

[MrNaz]

Boiling down free speech to nothing more than a constitutional guarantee is to denude it of all meaning.

Free speech is a principle which society bakes into its core values as expressed by the unwritten social contract. It manifests itself in legislation because that is where it needs to be formally documented. However, it is a mistake to think that the written law is the beginning and end of the values that we uphold.

Actually, the thinking that the law as written is the sum total of all values is one of the main problems of today. Because the black letter of the law is taken as the only gospel, then finding loopholes and ways to manipulate the wording to your advantage is just fine. I think a short look around the state of the world today will reveal that that is not fine.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[MrNaz]

I cannot reply to that without Godwining the thread.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[Dcnjoe60]

Oh Christ. Free Speech is fine. The government interfered with nothing. Just because he's allowed to say shit doesn't mean the world has to like it. He's an asshole if he thinks that a certain class of people deserve fewer rights than other people, and I wouldn't be any less condemning of his statements if he'd donated similar money to campaigns to remove rights from blacks, or asians, or any other minority group.

What you say might be true, but then he was with Mozilla, in a top ranking position long before now. Why wasn't their a public outcry back when Prop 8 passed?

And he didn't give money to a campaign to remove rights from anybody. He gave money to a campaign that basically defined marriage as between one mand and one woman. Over half the people in CA agreed with that. What's next, we are taking rights away from certain Morman groups, because gay or straight, they can't be married to more than one person?

For a group that states that they promote tolerance, they seem to be pretty intolerant. It's not tolerance if the requirement is you have to agree only with their position.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[lgw]

He doesn't have some fringe position. He had in 2006 the same position as Obama's official position, the same as the majority of Cali voters.

So, yes, you do need to say where you draw the line if you support shit like this.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[entrigant]

"... rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights

That seems a reasonable definition of rights for this discussion. Applying this to geekoid's comment, "He wanted to use political force to deny rights to people", is prefectly valid. The right existed in the legal sense prior to the passage of the proposition. Political force was being used to "re-remove" (deny) the right.

You are absolutely correct the "governmental advantages" associated with marriage are, indeed, privileges in the legal sense, but that's beside the point. Marriage itself is a right that places those who obtain married status into a class that enjoys specific privileges.

I do agree that marriage is not a _natural_ right, but a civil one. Marriage is, afterall, and entirely human legal creation. That the right existed in the state prior to prop 8 does result in it being an explicit attempt to deny a pre-existing civil right. However, even if that had not been the case, it is still possible to deny a right that has not been expressly granted in the past. To put it as simply as possible; "Can I have this?", "No" - Denied.

Of course all of this completely ignores the ethical issue which you so nicely opened up in your final sentence. However, I'll leave that fo rother commentors. The irony of one who would deny rights on the grounds of thinly veiled bigotry (but it's just my opinion!) calling those who would grant them bigots is not lost on most.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[lgw]

He holds a very popular, mainstream view. You support firing people who have very popular, mainstream views that you disagree with. I think that's fucked up.

There should not be personal consequences for standing on one side or another of mainstream political debates. Gay marriage, abortion, there are always issues that people are quite passionate about. If you lose the election, you don't get your way and that's the price of democracy - and it's a good trade-off. But if we target individuals for persecution, we lose democracy.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[Kalriath]

Mexico.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[TheGratefulNet]

quite convincingly

it was close to 50/50. how do you see that as anything other than 'some agree, some don't ?

if it was 60/40 or 70/30 or 80/20, sure, call it 'convincingly' but when its noise level around 50/50, uhm, that's pretty uncertain to me. all that says is that its evenly split and therefore, no clear mandate either way.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[cheesybagel]

No. You are just distressed that you cannot refute my postulate. That is all.

There is plenty of proof in nature that primates engage in gay sex when they lack opportunity to have sex with someone of the opposite sex. What is disingenuous is that you think people cannot be socially predisposed to assume a certain sexuality. I am not saying it is the only factor, but it is a factor. The social environment can predispose people to engage in certain sexual activity just like it happened in ancient Sparta.

If you think the economic growth of a nation is disconnected from birth rates you need to go back to Econ 101.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[PsychoSlashDot]

I assume you support banning infertile hetero couples from marrying as well

Sure why not. They can still live together.

Because there are serious legal situations that surround marital status.

Because when my wife isn't entitled to my health care benefits because we don't have a kid, it's your fault. Because when my wife isn't permitted the same power-of-attorney benefits when I am ill, infirm, and/or dead, it's your fault. Because when my wife isn't allowed to visit me in a hospital situation that permits "only family", it's your fault.

Don't you get it that impinging on these sort of "benefits" makes you a bad person?

This world is not wanting for more human beings. By not adding to the human burden on the planet we are actually being responsible. But you'll happily treat us as lesser people because we don't have the same biological imperative that you do. Did I mention bad person? Personally I can't see how a hetero couple that doesn't/can't have kids is somehow lesser than someone who knocks up his wife so she can birth a kid they can raise as yet another bigot.

I don't have a horse in the gay/straight race, being hetero, but I sure as heck can tell right from wrong.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[Solandri]

And as long as they're not directly being a dick to you, you're supposed to exhibit some degree of tolerance, especially in the workplace.

I would say that if you are Gay and would like to receive the government benefits associated with a marriage then giving $1,000 to stopping you would fall into the category of "Being a dick to you".

I've actually proposed a solution that addresses that. Overhaul the government laws so that all "marriage" benefits are now tied to civil unions, leaving the term "marriage" reserved for purely ceremonial (religious) use. This neatly eliminates the conflict between religious definitions of marriage and government benefits tied to marriage (or lack thereof for gay couples). The benefits would be tied to civil unions instead.

Every pro-gay marriage friend I suggested this to rejected it. The only acceptable solution to them was to strip the concept of marriage entirely from any religious influence, and hand complete control of it over it to those with modern secular viewpoints. I protested that this could create a conflict wherein a church could be sued for refusing to allow a gay couple to use the church for a wedding. They had no problem with this. i.e. Their stance is based on attributing no value to any religious viewpoint - they do not believe in freedom of religion.

Second, it's not like the man is a skin-head.

Skinheads think blacks are inferior and bad for society.
Homophobes think gays are inferior and bad for society.

So yes it is like he's a skin-head.

Conservatives think liberals are inferior and bad for society.
Liberals think conservatives are inferior and bad for society.
Religio-phobes think religious people are inferior and bad for society.
People like you think skin-heads are inferior and bad for society.

So by your reasoning, pretty much everyone is like a skin-head; including yourself.

Skin-heads aren't bad because they think Jews and blacks are inferior and bad for society. They're bad because they think this justifies eliminating Jews and blacks from society - removing their influence from the socio-political fabric which makes up our society. Kinda like how Eich was eliminated. The supporters of Prop 8 at least had the decency to push their viewpoint through legislative channels, giving the electorate a chance to vote on the issue, and allowing the courts to weigh in on the outcome (eventually overturning the vote). What happened to Eich was a lynch mob-like naming and shaming. The whole reason we came up with formal government systems was because at some point we decided gossip and hearsay were a poor means to run society. Unfortunately, one of the downsides of the Internet is that it gives more power to gossip and hearsay.

Tolerance doesn't mean tolerating only those who tolerate you. Tolerance means also tolerating those who don't tolerate you. If you live by the former, then you believe the Black Panthers were right, and Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr. were wrong. The former leads to all-out war. The latter leads to coexistence. When Prop 8 passed, I didn't rub it in the faces of my gay friends. I encouraged them to not lose hope and to continue fighting for what they believed in, because that is the way our system is set up to work. Everyone gets their (thorough) say before society as a whole decides what to do, and the losers (usually the minority, though in Prop 8's case it was the majority) agree to live with the outcome without resorting to violence, while the winners do not resort to outbursts of Schadenfreude.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[Smauler]

What we cannot have is everyone or even a large segment of the population choosing to do that. Once that becomes a trend the end result is extinction.

FFS... there are 7 billion people in the world. Prior to basic technology, less than ten thousand years ago, that number was less than 5 million.

You want an example of an ancient society which embraced birth control as an ethos? Carthage. As a result they became over dependent on military assistance from Libyan and Numidian mercenaries. When the Romans invaded guess who won?

The Romans invaded basically all of Europe. They did not succeed because all of Europe was practicing birth control. To say that the military success of ancient Rome was due to their opponents practicing birth control is... interesting. Also, Carthage did not practice birth control, but don't let that spoil your argument.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[Vaphell]

bollocks. Freedom of speech is a two way street. If you hound people in their jobs for things they say on their own time and dime, you legitimize hounding people you like by the people you don't like for whatever bullshit reasons. So what now, half of Cali should lose their jobs because they supported and voted for the Christian definition of marriage and professional victims in LGBT movement have an issue with that? And then in retaliation every Dem loses his job in red states?
"No, b-b-but it's different you see? i am RIGHT and they are WRONG".
No, you are a fucking hypocrite. If your stance on how to conduct business between the 'good' guys and the 'bad' guys doesn't survive multiplying by -1, it fucking sucks.

The state of California as a whole supported Prop 8, and even Obama was antigay marriage in 2008. What we have here is a convenient scapegoat from 6 years ago because someone, somewhere was not outraged for too long.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[Lord Kano]

It's not bigotry to say "No, your relationship with your partner is not the same thing as a marriage and we will not recognize it as such."

LK

Re:I think this is bullshit

[Coolhand2120]

Odd, I thought being a CEO made you an employer, you know, one of those "job creators"

No, as the CEO you're an employee. You can be fired. Although you may have a say so in hiring decisions, you are not an employer and you don't sign pay checks. It would be like saying a department manager is an employer because he can hire or fire people.

By the way - one point a lot of people seem to be missing here is that as CEO Eich would have the power to decide how the company he heads throws its weight around in the political arena

So you're basically saying that he's guilty of maybe doing something in the future? There is no evidence to suggest that he would allow his personal views to influence his decisions as CEO. If follow that logic then nobody that has any sort of political affiliation should be in any sort of decision making position lest they allow their personal beliefs to influence decision making.

And funny how you've convicted him of this behavior in your mind before you have any sort of evidence to suggest that he would do that.

I find it rather ironic that the supposed champions of intolerance are the ones that are demonstrably the most intolerant.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[Pseudonym]

In the United States, "communism" means any public policy that Rupert Murdoch doesn't like.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[lgw]

You can't have democracy if the vote isn't secret. It has become obvious that you also can't have democracy unless political contributions by individuals are kept secret.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[dave420]

When someone wants to deny freedom to someone else simply because of benign, arbitrarily-selected attributes, that's hate. There's no logic or reason behind wanting gay folks to not get married, just a visceral reaction born from emotion, not fact. Prop 8 is about as hateful as you can get - it's designed to make people second-class citizens simply because of who they are, a quality they can not (nor should not) change. Keep trying to argue away the hate - you won't be very successful, and afterwards, people will still see you for who you are. And your examples are terrible, which is what happens when otherwise-intelligent people try to reason their hatred.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[ganjadude]

Thats not what I said, They are free to say what they are just as well, It just makes them just as big of an asshole as this guy is in their heads.

In other words, a boycott of the browser is fine, telling other people to boycott it is fine as well.

demanding he be fired is not.

Lets look at it like this, What if the man were a gay CEO and the religious right demanded the gay CEO be fired, would you still support that action?? I wouldnt

Re:I think this is bullshit

[tbannist]

Brendan Eich made a personal comment that was not representative of the views of the entire office at Mozilla.

Actually, he donated money to a campaign to strip some of his employees of the rights they had been granted by the state of California. That campaign temporarily succeed, those employees have a really good reason to oppose him. Additionally, he was put in a position where his personal views would likely be material to his performance of the office because he would be making the decision on whether his gay and lesbian employees would be treated the same as his straight employees and he is on record as opposing that equality. He has claimed he would not act on that belief in his position, instead of renouncing the view entirely so many people are (rightfully) skeptical that he would keep his personal prejudices separate from his professional decisions.

It is important to note that we did not hear any complaints about his prejudice until he was put in a position where his prejudice could materially affect the lives of his fellow Mozilla empoyees. It seems like many of the Mozilla employees were concerned not that he was a bigot but that we has a bigot who was put in a position to act on his bigotry (by design or by inconsideration).

Would it have been morally right if Brendan Eich stated in his departure speech that the 'net in general, as well as all non-LGBT persons should boycott OKCupid as a dating site due to their anti-free speech and pro-gay agenda?

Morally right? No, but that's because Eich's bigotry is morally wrong and the claim that OKCupid is anti-free speech would be a lie. He does, however, have the right to make such statements.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[Descalzo]

Hilarious that this statement is made after a story regarding marriage.

Good job community

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Good job community

[Anonymous Coward]

When do we start boycotting rms for smelling bad?

Moral of the story...

[axlash]

...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.

Re:Moral of the story...

[XLT_Frank]

Unless you are Chic-fil-a

Re:Moral of the story...

[DaHat]

...Keep your political views well hidden

How well hidden is enough?

Clearly donations are out as the pro-Prop 8 donor list was leaked/stolen which is part of the reason for this bigotry of differing opinions.

Even filling in the oval on the ballot could come back and haunt you depending on how your ballot is treated and if it can be linked to you (here in Washington State, it's a trivial matter)).

you plan to head up an organisation that is sensitive as to how it is perceived by a cross-section of society.

I don't know about you, I don't know which groups I might be heading in 6 years, or 60 for that matter... best to just stop voting, donating money or having opinions that someone somewhere might find offensive... unless that too is considered offensive.

Re:Moral of the story...

[businessnerd]

Chick-fil-a's CEO, Dan Cathy, may actually disagree with you. Not long ago, he openly apologized for his comments about gay marriage and his donations to many of the apparent hate groups have declined or all together stopped. He cited many reasons for his change of heart, but the most telling was that "it was bad for business." http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US...

I remember reading at the time (although I can't find the source anymore) that while sales spiked during the initial publicity, they later declined to a point lower than before the controversy started. So they didn't really get any new customers from the whole thing, just lots of people who were already Chick-fil-a customers going out and making a statement. Once the controversy died down, existing customers went back to their old purchasing habits. However, they did lose customers. Those who used to be customers and were offended by the comments, will likely never be customers again.

A company needs to succeed based on the product that they are offering, whether its differentiating qualities are real or perceived. Anything else is simply a distraction. This goes for chicken and web browsers. The views of the CEO shouldn't be a consideration for customers when choosing a web browser.

Re:Moral of the story...

[TubeSteak]

Clearly donations are out as the pro-Prop 8 donor list was leaked/stolen which is part of the reason for this bigotry of differing opinions.

Bigotry of differing opinions?
Actively trying to make equality illegal is not a "differing opinion."

I don't know about you, I don't know which groups I might be heading in 6 years, or 60 for that matter... best to just stop voting, donating money or having opinions that someone somewhere might find offensive... unless that too is considered offensive.

History has already decided on freedom for the slaves, the universal right to vote (hello ladies), the right to interracial mixing, the right to not be racially discriminated against, etc etc etc.

If you have to ask if your positions are offensive and odious to society, they probably are.

Victory for the Thought Police?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Victory for the Thought Police?

[im_thatoneguy]

The Thought Police have been around for all of time. Think it's ok to molest small children? Expect the Thought police to ostracize you. Support stripping the rights of your fellow citizens? Here comes the "thought police". Give money to the KKK, here come the "thought police".

You're free to practice your religion. Your religion is free to say that gay people are gross. Your religion is free to say that it's good to sacrifice virgins over an alter. We're all free to call you crazy wackos. Freedom goes both way bucko.

Crying "religious freedom" is like running up, kicking someone in the shins and then yelling "No backsies, religious freedom!" Believe whatever you want, but trying to strip rights from your fellow citizens isn't a "belief" that's action. That's an assault on their rights.

Re:Victory for the Thought Police?

[Anonymous Coward]

President Obama's view on same sex marriage were aligned in Prop 8 and the Mozilla CEO. Do you not remember this?

This whole thing is just getting thought-police creepy. There's a huge group of folks out there that want to shut down any type of dissent, from global warming to same-sex marriage. Not healthy.

Re:Victory for the Thought Police?

[meta-monkey]

It's not that simple. Marriage is not a right. For anyone. It's a social construct. You can't engage in the "active suppression of other people's rights" when there is no right involved.

I see both sides of the issue have valid arguments, but booting somebody out of an organization for having a different political opinion does not speak of a "culture of openness." It's open and inclusive until you vote in a way we don't like. Wow.

Re:Victory for the Thought Police?

[Dixie_Flatline]

The Supreme Court disagrees with you, as I recall. https://www.afer.org/blog/14-s...

Whether this is philosophically true or not, it's true in the context of the US legal system. I think it's a fundamental human right to associate with and make a family with whomever you please. If the government provides benefits, privileges and rights associated with marriage, it's a right to receive those, regardless of who you chose to marry.

Re:Victory for the Thought Police?

[sstamps]

No one had to enter his mind to patrol his thoughts -- he expressed them and acted on them publicly for all to see.

I love it when people try to spin things like this as "attacks" on "religious freedom". No one said he couldn't hold his opinion or his personal beliefs. However, he didn't just hold the belief, he acted on it. Also, there is nothing saying that having any particular personal belief (or lack of) entitles you to employment, let alone in a leadership role.

Holding demonstrably wrong beliefs should be at least challenged, if not penalized; otherwise, what's anyone's incentive to change them?

Re:Victory for the Thought Police?

[DaHat]

President Obama in no way shape or form was signing any law that would deny rights

Incorrect.

President Obama signed the ACA which not only encourages employers to drop coverage, but outright denies people the right to pick & choose exactly the kind of coverage I want.

Oh it's only with regards to same-sex couples you are worried about the denying of rights? The rest of us don't matter? Good to know...

Re:Victory for the Thought Police?

[jez9999]

Either the government gets the hell out of marriage entirely, or it must be available to any and all, regardless of who is sticking what in which holes.

What about dogs' "holes"? What about the "holes" of 10 women? Marriage has not traditionally been defined as between man and animal, or man and multiple women. I support gay marriage, but I can definitely see where people like Eich are coming from in not wanting to redefine marriage away from its traditional meaning.

Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly someone doesn't quite get it.

This is unacceptable

[SocietyoftheFist]

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.

Re:This is unacceptable

[Anonymous Coward]

It wasn't on twitter, it was a donor record that was stolen and published in violation of state and federal law. That's about the same scale of intrusion as a Pepsi employee getting fired because he bought a can of Coke with cash and someone stole the security footage at the gas station, identified him, and started a blog devoted to vilifying him.

Freedom of political activism

[INowRegretThesePosts]

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.

Re:Freedom of political activism

[radish]

He wasn't fired, he chose to resign as it was in the best interests of Mozilla. As CEO he was the figurehead of the company, and he simply cannot distinguish his private beliefs from those of the company in the same way as a rank-and-file employee can. No one cared that he worked at Mozilla - they cared that he _led_ Mozilla.

Re:Freedom of political activism

[AK Marc]

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.

Yet many places have explicit rules about political activisim because, whether you like it or not, your actions away from work affect your work, or the company you work for. If a principal was "caught" for some minor sex-crime (we can use "indecent exposure for using a gay glory hole" for an example if you like, but the details don't matter much), do you think there wouldn't be any link between their non-work actions, and the perception of their ability to do their job?

And stepping down isn't "demoted".

Re:Freedom of political activism

[INowRegretThesePosts]

You're wrong, actually. We as citizens are just as free to voice our views as Eich was to voice his. We're saying we disagree with his views. Are you trying to suggest that we be disallowed from that basic freedom?

One thing is to have a legal right, another thing is to be correct. You are legally free to boycott a company whose CEO, say, donated $1000 to a political campaign regarding abortion (either pro- or anti-), 5 years ago. That doesn't make it ethical.

Re:Freedom of political activism

[DaHat]

No one's denied Eich any freedom at all. He can spout his bigoted views as much as he wants. The rest of us are allowed to complain loudly about it,

Tell me, what's it like to be a bigot?

Yes you are.. you are acknowledging your membership and participation in a group which has acted very vocally on it's intolerance of his views. I may not agree with his views (or yours)... but you don't see me demanding that any of you resign or be fired.

So yes, that makes you a bigot.

I wonder what else you and Mr Eich have in common?

Re:Freedom of political activism

[vakuona]

That is sophistry.

The employees knowingly put their own company in a difficult position by demanding, on twitter, for the resignation of their CEO. Of course you can't just fire the CEO. But you can make his position untenable, which is what this employee did.

Re:WTF?

[oh_my_080980980]

Yeah because we need more CEOs crusading to take away the rights of Americans.....

Talk about conflicted...

[Hussman32]

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.

Re:Talk about conflicted...

[steelfood]

If OkCupid was actually doing more than just attention-seeking, they would've boycotted Javascript (and put up banners for JS-enabled browsers to tell their users to disable JS). And I'll bet a fair amount of people here develop in and/or work closesly with Javascript.

Anybody, especially organizations, who advocated for Eich to step down should boycott JS too, if they truly believe their own righteousness. Don't see that happening anywhere...

Blah

[benjfowler]

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.

Re:Blah

[Yosho]

I think it's totally unfair to crucify somebody for their personal opinions. Just saying.

Fortunately, he didn't get crucified. People were just being vocal about the fact that they wouldn't use a product he represented. Do you think that's unfair? Should people be required to shut up and keep using something even if they don't want to support him?

Re:This is intolerance

[Yosho]

Do we want to live in a society where people are persecuted for their beliefs?

When those beliefs are abhorrent, sure. To go ahead and make an extreme example, do you want to live in a society where nobody bats an eye if somebody in a position of power says they believe Jewish people should be burned in ovens?

While this guy's particular belief isn't quite that bad, also consider that he donated a considerable amount of money to a group dedicated to passing laws discriminating against a class of people. On top of that, it's hardly "persecuting" somebody to simply not use a product that he represents. He made the decision to step down. Try again when people are physically harassing him or refusing to serve him in restaurants.

Sound Logic

[EverlastingPhelps]

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.

Severe lack of perspective

[Dega704]

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.

Re:This is intolerance

[TheGratefulNet]

those that don't understand, never will.

the younger crowd already 'gets' it and they will replace the older crowd, over time.

history is being made. over the last 20 or so years, individual rights are slowly increasing. sometimes a few steps forward and some back, but there is a net gain and its not going to go backwards on the long-run.

folks who are on the wrong side of history will deny it to the end. nothing can be done to change their minds. just feel sorry for them. and try to minimize how much power they have, so their intolerant views don't spillover to decent society too much. if you 'contain' the bigots, their effect on the rest of us is minimized.

JS Mill had this right 150 years ago

[thecombatwombat]

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.

Where's the opposing boycott?

[firewood]

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?

Re:Where's the opposing boycott?

[aristotle-dude]

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?

Right here. I uninstalled Firefox.

Resigning was an offer he couldn't refuse

[INowRegretThesePosts]

He wasn't fired, he chose to resign as it was in the best interests of Mozilla. As CEO he was the figurehead of the company, and he simply cannot distinguish his private beliefs from those of the company in the same way as a rank-and-file employee can. No one cared that he worked at Mozilla - they cared that he _led_ Mozilla.

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?

A majority of California voters supported prop 8

[Gavagai80]

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.

Pitchforks + torches

[taylorius]

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.

Re:diagreeing with same sex marriage != hate

[Cyrano de Maniac]

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.

From one who came from a communist country ...

[Taco Cowboy]

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.

Facism or Mob Rule, take your pick.

[leereyno]

"Mozilla prides itself on being held to a different standard and, this past week, we didn't live up to it," executive chairwoman Mitchell Baker wrote. "We know why people are hurt and angry, and they are right: it's because we haven't stayed true to ourselves. We didn't act like you'd expect Mozilla to act. We didn't move fast enough to engage with people once the controversy started. We're sorry. We must do better."

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?

All gays and gay supporters must stop using JS.

[aristotle-dude]

You must stop using Javascript or you will be labels as fascists, heterophobes and hypocrites. After all, the man you demonized invented Javascript. He probably contributed more to the internet that you know and love than any living gay person or gay rights supporter. So if you are truly principled and not just a bunch of blind hypocrites and bigots, you all need to get off the javascript enabled internet immediately.

PS. Don't let the door hit you on your pompous asses as you leave.

Re:My take as a 9 year LGBT Mozilla contributor

[aristotle-dude]

Sleep with whomever you want but your piece of paper will not give you legitimacy. You are free to be happy but that requires a choice that only you can make. Happiness is a choice. No law is going to make you happy. People that you think hate you don't actually hate you. They hate people like you trying to change the definition of "normal". Be as gay as you want to be but don't trying to force everyone else to think of you as "normal". You will always be "queer" to them regardless of how many laws you get passed or lawsuits you win. Legitimacy is bestowed by society. It cannot be forced upon society by bullies like you.

Eich invented Javascript. What did you do?

I suggest that you stop using Javascript and all pages with Javascript on it including Slashdot.