5 ms·

From the team that hounded out Brendan Eich... May I quote the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opin

by metaos 11y ago

From the team that hounded out Brendan Eich... May I quote the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression: this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

jimbokun 11y ago
And when you exercise that right, other people have the right to point out when you are being a jerk.
ZanyProgrammer 11y ago
Freedom of opinion and expression also means people can point you out as being an abusive asshole. Goes both ways.
chasing 11y ago
You misunderstand this passage. It doesn't mean you can open your mouth and say any stupid thing and no one can do anything about it. You can get fired. You can get your account removed from Twitter. People can complain about you on the internet. Oh, and don't paint Brendan Eich as some kind of victim of the free speech police. He actively participated in trying to deny a large class of Americans the basic freedom to marry whom they wanted. And people decided they didn't want someone with that record running Mozilla.
mikeash 11y ago
What's your point in posting that quote? Sure, Linus and Eich can say what they want, and others can say what they want about that.
Kristine1975 11y ago
Brendan Eich stepping down as Mozilla's CEO was not due to speech: >His appointment sparked controversy over a $1,000 political donation Eich had made in 2008 to the successful campaign for California Proposition 8, which sought to establish that, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
- amdavidson 11y ago
  While I don't agree with his personal donation or Citizen's United, that case held that political donation is a form of protected speech[0]. So in a very literal way, he was pushed out due to the manner in which he chose to speak. 0: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/citizens-united-v-federal-election-commission/ http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/citizens-united-v...
  - comex 11y ago
    You don't have to support the Citizens United decision to think that contributing small amounts to political campaigns is effectively speech - because the money is used to promulgate speech (ads), as well as in the more abstract sense that donations are viewed by society as a normal and encouraged outlet for people to promote their viewpoints. (Of course the humongous donations the decision enabled are also used to promulgate speech, which is why I have some sympathy for it, but there's just a huge difference in practice between giving $1,000 and giving millions.)

by metaos 11y ago

jimbokun 11y ago

And when you exercise that right, other people have the right to point out when you are being a jerk.

ZanyProgrammer 11y ago

Freedom of opinion and expression also means people can point you out as being an abusive asshole. Goes both ways.

chasing 11y ago

You misunderstand this passage. It doesn't mean you can open your mouth and say any stupid thing and no one can do anything about it. You can get fired. You can get your account removed from Twitter. People can complain about you on the internet. Oh, and don't paint Brendan Eich as some kind of victim of the free speech police. He actively participated in trying to deny a large class of Americans the basic freedom to marry whom they wanted. And people decided they didn't want someone with that record running Mozilla.

mikeash 11y ago

What's your point in posting that quote? Sure, Linus and Eich can say what they want, and others can say what they want about that.

Kristine1975 11y ago

Brendan Eich stepping down as Mozilla's CEO was not due to speech: >His appointment sparked controversy over a $1,000 political donation Eich had made in 2008 to the successful campaign for California Proposition 8, which sought to establish that, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

amdavidson 11y ago
While I don't agree with his personal donation or Citizen's United, that case held that political donation is a form of protected speech[0]. So in a very literal way, he was pushed out due to the manner in which he chose to speak. 0: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/citizens-united-v-federal-election-commission/ http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/citizens-united-v...
- comex 11y ago
  You don't have to support the Citizens United decision to think that contributing small amounts to political campaigns is effectively speech - because the money is used to promulgate speech (ads), as well as in the more abstract sense that donations are viewed by society as a normal and encouraged outlet for people to promote their viewpoints. (Of course the humongous donations the decision enabled are also used to promulgate speech, which is why I have some sympathy for it, but there's just a huge difference in practice between giving $1,000 and giving millions.)