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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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.

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?

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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?