22 ms·

Look how Silicon Valley folks treated Brandon Eich when he made a donation to the majority side in a California proposition. It's not just academia where you c

Look how Silicon Valley folks treated Brandon Eich when he made a donation to the majority side in a California proposition. It's not just academia where you can't speak freely.

dragonwriter 11y ago
The fact that other people are free to speak against you does not mean that you can't speak freely. Free speech does not mean freedom from having your speech acts criticized (quite the opposite; it includes freedom of others to criticize your speech acts.) And, yes, it means that your speech acts may affect your ability to hold a job where you are one of the major public faces of an organization (such as its CEO) and are not capable of dealing with the PR resulting from the association of those speech acts with a public face of the corporation (the same as it would if you couldn't deal with any other PR issue affecting the corporation, even if it wasn't resulting from your speech acts.)
- dudul 11y ago
  [Edit: the parent was edited after my comment, making it off-topic.]
- DrJokepu 11y ago
  This is a frequently repeated argument and I find it less and less convincing. It is true that America's constitution only guarantees the congress will not abridge the freedom of speech. However, an argument could be made that in a free society there's a fundamental right to have a dissenting opinion or voice; a right that is not codified by the constitution because it's simply irrelevant to a constitution. It seems to me that it's up to all of us to tolerate non-extreme dissenting voices, even if we disagree with them.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > However, an argument could be made that in a free society there's a fundamental right to have a dissenting opinion or voice Of course, there is a fundamental right to have (and express) a dissenting opinion or voice. There is also a fundamental right to have (and express) displeasure with an opinion or voice, whether dissenting or not. And there is no fundamental entitlement to a job whose responsibilities include managing the public image of a corporation, and if you are unable to do that in the real circumstances and public image problems the corporation faces, whether or not your own speech acts are the source of that PR problem, you shouldn't expect to continue to have that job.
    - ElComradio 11y ago
      The problem is that the current system in practice legally protects certain opinions. E.g. If Eich was pro gay marriage and vocally so, firing him on that basis would have been very risky legally. Especially if he was gay, it would probably be impossible to fire him without losing an expensive lawsuit afterwards.
      - nkassis 11y ago
        I don't think legally but more politically and PR wise. There a difference between firing someone for making donations to pro-X groups and firing someone for being X. In this hypothetical scenario, Eich would have to prove he was fired for being gay instead of for making a public donation that support a group and leads to potential blowback against the company. It's bad either way. Mozilla had a no win situation here. They got bad PR from both sides.
        ElComradio 11y ago
        Forget about whether it has blowback against the company- It's totally legal AFAIK to fire someone for their "off the clock" speech for any or no reason at all. In reality, though, I think a jury would be very skeptical of a company's claims that someone was fired for promoting the gay agenda (which would be legal) and not for being a gay person.
    - DrJokepu 11y ago
      I mean, yes, you're right, but surely, if voicing a dissenting opinion will damage or outright destroy your career, then unless you're extremely privileged and can afford to take the hit, you can't really do it, even if technically you have the right, can you? Technological advances such as social media make vilifying dissenting views (and the people who express them) cheaper and more effective than ever before. There must be some kind of a balance between the right to dissent and the right to "have a displeasure with an opinion" as you said, and I feel like the way things are going now, it doesn't look like we have found that balance. Ultimately a healthy society will need both.
    - deleted 11y ago
  - ElComradio 11y ago
    A way to address this might be to add "political opinions" to the list of protected classes. It is undeniably bad for a democracy (I know I know, we aren't technically a democracy) where people aren't free in practice to discuss contentious issues. As currently stands, you can stand in the town square and promote affirmative action it would be very risky legally to fire you. But if you get up and argue for the repeal of some affirmative action legislation you can be safely fired with no objection from legal.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > As currently stands, you can stand in the town square and promote affirmative action it would be very risky legally to fire you. But if you get up and argue for the repeal of some affirmative action legislation you can be safely fired with no objection from legal. Legally, promoting either of those opinions is subject to exactly the same degree of protection. The willingness of a particular employer to accept the legal risk maybe different between them, but that's a different issue than the law itself.
      - ElComradio 11y ago
        That in practice it does not work as intended means it is bad law and needs tweaked. One way would be to say that all behavior "off the clock" and all attributes of a person not related to the job are protected. Another way would be to say nothing is protected. Right now we have a middle ground that plays favorites.
        dragonwriter 11y ago
        > That in practice it does not work as intended means it is bad law and needs tweaked. In what specific, concrete ways does it not work out the way you think it is intended? > One way would be to say that all behavior "off the clock" and all attributes of a person not related to the job are protected. Another way would be to say nothing is protected. Those are obviously potential rules, but I don't see that either of them is closer to any reasonable interpretation of the intended result that antidiscrimination laws are intended to serve.
  - maratd 11y ago
    > However, an argument could be made that in a free society there's a fundamental right to have a dissenting opinion or voice Since we're not talking about the constitution, which strictly relates to government and public property, then we're talking about private entities and private property. You do not have the right to speak on my property. Forcing that is in direct contradiction to a free society that has a concept of private property. I am all for fostering tolerance to offensive speech, but not at the expensive of destroying the concept of private ownership. It is absolutely not a fundamental right. It should be a social norm, but that's all it should be. > It seems to me that it's up to all of us to tolerate non-extreme dissenting voices Who gets to define what is and is not extreme? Freedom of expression means tolerating something offensive by definition. If it's not offensive, it doesn't need to be tolerated.
    - caseysoftware 11y ago
      And thus you have the shifting definition of what is "extreme" or not. Then again, if you keep chopping off the edges of the bell curve, everything that doesn't precisely match the middle is extreme by comparison.
    - venomsnake 11y ago
      >Since we're not talking about the constitution, which strictly relates to government and public property, then we're talking about private entities and private property. Except a lot of private entities receive a lot of money from the federal government - either as subsidies, tax breaks or programs. So they should abide by the rules of the government too. Giving public money to entities that not view the first amendment as obligatory for them - that is wrong for me.
- twoodfin 11y ago
  Sure, it's a free country for everybody. But, IMHO, the threshold for taking arguments outside the political arena and into the realm of boycotts and demands for resignations should be a lot higher than it seems to be today. Otherwise vibrant, productive arguments don't happen, since everyone's concentrating on bankrupting the other side of money, "platforms", or legitimacy.
  - xtian 11y ago
    The more the political arena is dominated by money and marketing, the more people will use that language to make their voices heard.
  - curiousgeorgio 11y ago
    This is the reason I keep two HN accounts - I fear that any political comments I make here could jeopardize my professional life (about which I contribute fairly often). Online, that's a fairly easy thing to manage. In real life, it means I really have to walk on eggshells a lot, and I seldom participate in voicing my opinions (or supporting certain causes) in which I'd otherwise participate, solely out of fear. In many cases, you can keep your personal views and professional life isolated, but not always. Maybe it's an irrational fear, but then again, in today's political climate it seems foolish not to worry about that. And if that need to self-censor isn't cause for concern, I don't know what is.
    - cozuya 11y ago
      I view HN as a forum for professionals so I don't make comments that could negatively impact my professional life here. In that way I think self censure is fine. If you don't agree with my assessment thats fine as well of course. Of course most of the sparse comments I make here are dumb jokes...
      - TeMPOraL 11y ago
        The point is, thanks to Social Justice Warriors, you never know what comment could affect your career. Expressing opinion about merits of Angular.js is probably safe. But anything that involves gender - a study, or a remark about distribution of men and women in tech industry - is not to be touched with a ten foot pole if you value your employability. It takes very little to become a victim of a Twitter outrage.
- nine_k 11y ago
  While their behavior was entirely legal and protected by the First Amendment, the problem lies elsewhere. It's in the utter lack of tolerance to the views not conforming to the group's, not unlike the reaction religious extremists would display. Can't help but quote: -- The Emperor summons before him Bodhidharma and asks: “Master, I have been tolerant of innumerable gays, lesbians, bisexuals, asexuals, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, transgender people, and Jews. How many Tolerance Points have I earned for my meritorious deeds?” Bodhidharma answers: “None at all”. The Emperor, somewhat put out, demands to know why not. Bodhidharma asks: “Well, what do you think of gay people?” The Emperor answers: “What do you think I am, some kind of homophobic bigot? Of course I have nothing against gay people!” And Bodhidharma answers: “Thus do you gain no merit by tolerating them!” -- (http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything...)
  - lern_too_spel 11y ago
    You seem to have bought into fair and balanced horseshit. There are certain views that are morally superior to others, just as there are certain hamburgers that are better than others. Taking rights away from other people loosely based on ancient superstitions (the Bible says nothing about allowing gays to marry but says a lot about how to punish them -- the only reason Eich and his ilk aren't politically promoting the punishments is that our secular society would rightfully come down even harder on them then) is not something that should be a protected viewpoint, just as promoting the idea that Jews (as a race) should not have property rights is something that should not be tolerated. Had Eich done something that was morally neutral, everybody would have stood up for his right to do that, as well they should. That's not what he did though.
    - refurb 11y ago
      There are certain views that are morally superior to others Whose morals? Back in the 1800's in the South it was generally viewed as moral to have slaves. Was that right?
      - 11y ago
- nickff 11y ago
  Would you then also argue that the Hollywood blacklist was morally unassailable?[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    I didn't argue that anything was morally unassailable. That freedom of speech includes freedom of speech criticizing others' speech acts does not mean that all speech is morally equal. Nor, in any case, was the Hollywood blacklist a speech act; it was a conspiracy in restraint of trade.
    - nickff 11y ago
      Do you think that this corporate executive will be hired in a similar role from which he was let go? If not, how is this functionally different from a blacklist (or "conspiracy in restraint of trade")?
      - dragonwriter 11y ago
        Since he is currently CEO of a technology company, I don't think it's anything like an industry blacklist, in effect (obviously, its nothing like it in structure, either.)
        nickff 11y ago
        Being forced to leave one of the most influential software developers, and go start a new small startup is comparable to being forced out of the major studios and starting your own. I fail to see any significant difference between what happened at Mozilla and the Hollywood blacklist.
- sliverstorm 11y ago
  I'm not a master enough of this subject to form a detailed argument, but I hope we can agree there is a line somewhere between civil criticism and a lynching. Especially, IMO, in the case of a ballot issue. Are we trying to coerce people to vote the way we want them to? That's unconscionable to me.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > I'm not a master enough of this subject to form a detailed argument, but I hope we can agree there is a line somewhere between civil criticism and a lynching. Yes, there is, and what Eich experienced was not only not a lynching [0], it was quite far from the line that separates criticism from lynching. [0] in case there is a lack of clarity, this is a lynching: http://abhmuseum.org/2012/01/an-iconic-lynching-in-the-north/ http://abhmuseum.org/2012/01/an-iconic-lynching-in-the-north...
    - sliverstorm 11y ago
      it was quite far from the line that separates criticism from lynching. Where do you believe that line is? He certainly experienced mob justice in some form.
- ta0o0o0 11y ago
  Yes, of course Eich's critics had the right to criticize him. The point is that calling for his resignation was grossly disproportionate.
  - kafkaesq 11y ago
    The point is that calling for his resignation was grossly disproportionate. Depends where you draw the line. Many people feel that when Eich chose to support groups that were running bigoted TV ads (beyond simply expressing an opinion as to a ballot issue) he effectively crossed that line.
    - ta0o0o0 11y ago
      And others feel that a person who can make this statement: https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/ https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/ ...I know some will be skeptical about this, and that words alone will not change anything. I can only ask for your support to have the time to "show, not tell"; and in the meantime express my sorrow at having caused pain. ... and who has never even been accused of discrimination, harassment, or abuse of any kind in his professional capacity (or otherwise AFAIK) should be given the chance to prove himself. I'm pretty sure they didn't send the ads out for the approval of every campaign contributor before they aired them.
      - kafkaesq 11y ago
        Eich's statement in that posting is indeed a valid, mitigating factor in his favor. He could have done more, by addressing the issue of the TV ads directly. By not doing so, people had reason to believe he was sidestepping that key issue (and that he may not really understand why people were offended by those ads).
        ta0o0o0 11y ago
        What can I say, that is just not the world I want to live in. A world in which your defeated [1] political opponents must repent, wear sackcloth, and cast ashes in their hair or else be professionally destroyed. [1] Proposition 8 had been struck down by the time of Eich's appointment to CEO
- BurningFrog 11y ago
  Yes, the Eich takedown was entirely legal. No one claims it wasn't. You're missing the point.
- overcyn 11y ago
  Other people in this thread have already expressed my opinion far more eloquently than I could have. But I am wondering, do you think the protests that lead to the resignation of Claremont McKenna's dean is appropriate (besides the legalistic sense)? And if not, why is it different from the pressure that lead Brandon Eich to resign?
- thelastguy 11y ago
  If you're a CEO and you're purposely creating a toxic work environment by continuously saying racist things to your workers, then obviously, you deserve to get fired. But hell no you should not deserve to get fired for donating to the Republican Party. You have the right to donate to whichever LEGAL organization you want.
ZeroGravitas 11y ago
Ironic that you've censored yourself rather than state what he donated money towards.
- scott_karana 11y ago
  I think they're trying to make the point that it's not relevant.
  - krainboltgreene 11y ago
    Like, if he had donated to Save Kittens & Dogs foundation no one would have cared. So yeah, it's obviously relevant and I doubt they were making any specific point.
- albedoa 11y ago
  While simultaneously appealing to a majority.
rspeer 11y ago
Money is not speech, it's money. People were angry at Eich because he spent money opposing a cause they supported. Brandon Eich is not an example of anything this article is about. It's much more straightforward: if you do things people don't like, those people won't like you.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- sremani 11y ago
  Brandon Eich episode speaks volumes, esp. since he was at the winning side of the Popular Vote. Tinder did not walk away for CA after Prop 8 was won. I really do not know a single state including CA and OR, where gay marriage actually garnered Popular majority. Now the debate about whether something like that should be up for Vote is different and one I have no much domain knowledge. The fact was Brandon Eich's political belief were not fringe or extremist and more alignment to the times, is the case for NOT bullying him out of his Executive Office in Mozilla. For a organization that wants to stand up against Big Bad Governments and Corporations, Mozilla capitulated to a PC vocal minority. This has emboldened "Crybullies" of all shapes and forms including the ones in Yale. note:I am for Gay Marriage but I am against bullying people who are not for it.
  - wldcordeiro 11y ago
    I was of the opinion that people should have at least given him a chance, he stated that he would respect the Mozilla policies of openness and put his personal beliefs aside and I would have liked to at least see him try.
  - thrownaway2424 11y ago
    The "PC vocal minority" were Mozilla's own employees and contributors. You can say what you like about the California electorate as a whole but to be against gay marriage in San Francisco is to be an asshole. Eich should have known he was endangering Mozilla's ability to attract and retain talent and outside contributions.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
albedoa 11y ago
The conversations about Brandon Eich and his views regrettably died down before the Donald Sterling incident. I am still curious today where defenders of Eich fall in the controversy over Sterling. Will anyone who defends Eich or is critical of his detractors come out and say that Sterling should not have received the wrath of the media and public and should not have been punished for expressing his views? Or does your position shift based on the opinion being expressed by either man? Are there materialistic differences between these men and their beliefs?
- defen 11y ago
  Donald Sterling, 80 year old man in the early stages of Alzheimer's, has a private one-on-one conversation with a "trusted" person secretly recorded by that person, which results in his being banned for life from the NBA and forced to sell his team. To me that's literally one step away from thought-crime. If we had magical mind-reading technology that could prove Donald Sterling was prejudiced against black people, but he never took any actions[1] or spoke any words based on that, should we strip him of his team? [1] I know about the housing discrimination lawsuit; I'm leaving it out of this analysis because the NBA clearly didn't care about it until the secret recording made Sterling a pariah.
- vox_mollis 11y ago
  Will anyone who defends Eich or is critical of his detractors come out and say that Sterling should not have received the wrath of the media Absolutely. Both men were pilloried by mob justice for PRIVATELY holding unpopular opinions.
  - yawaramin 11y ago
    Well, you haven't exactly come out and said anything, given that you've posted under a pseudonym....
- GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
  Now don’t be silly Who the fuck gon' bully me if I got a billi? If I got a billi and they're recording me I’m like who cares What I wouldn’t be is on TV stutterin' ta-ta-talkin' scared
ossreality 11y ago
HOW DOES NO ONE UNDERSTAND WHAT FREE SPEECH ACTUALLY MEANS?! Free speech, to anyone who leans conservative, means their right to say offensive bullshit free of any consequences. Someone else uses their agency or free speech to exclude your disgusting speech? WELL GUESS WHAT? That's free speech too.
roymurdock 11y ago
As an individual you are free to say whatever you please. As the CEO of a large organization, you are not. You are the face and voice of an organization. You speak for its employees and you are accountable to its shareholders. You are held to a higher standard and your every word/action is scrutinized. If your shareholders are afraid that your speech/actions will hurt the bottom line of the company, you will be removed from your position.
- gohrt 11y ago
  Yes, we know. Profit != Justice
  - roymurdock 11y ago
    What exactly is your argument? If you have strong views, you can express them in private, or you can head an organization that is dedicated to/aligned with those views. Freedom to say whatever you want, whenever is not justice either.
kafkaesq 11y ago
Ugh. The Brendan Eich issue was about freedom of association -- in particular, the right of Mozilla employees and stakeholders not to be associated with the bigoted groups (and their hateful TV ads) Eich was supporting -- rather than freedom of speech. If you're still not clear as to the distinction, please see: https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/
- gohrt 11y ago
  What about the freedom of Brendan Eich to associate with his employees and stakeholders who wanted a better web browser? Note that Eich was NOT opposed by his employees. He was opposed by outside activists. I don't see the current CEO of Mozilla resigning because they are meat-eaters, which, as a Firefox user, I find deeply offensive.
- bsamuels 11y ago
  responding to someone's opinion with "Ugh." is exactly what the op article is about
  - kafkaesq 11y ago
    It's not their opinion that merits the "Ugh." It's that people seem to be perpetually misinformed about many basic factors regarding the Eich case.
    - lern_too_spel 11y ago
      People hate to have their heroes torn down, even if their hero is just the creator of a fifth-rate programming language that nobody would willingly use if it weren't the only available zero-compile option on Berners-Lee's juggernaut of an application platform. Turing's suicide is merely a distant memory.
- sinxoveretothex 11y ago
  I think that the "association" in "Freedom of association" means the right to get with people (associate as in form a group). The "association" that you speak of is a different concept: figurative association (how people compare or liken groups one to the other). I do not think that it is right to conclude something about the one based on the other.

Look how Silicon Valley folks treated Brandon Eich when he made a donation to the majority side in a California proposition. It's not just academia where you can't speak freely.

dragonwriter 11y ago

The fact that other people are free to speak against you does not mean that you can't speak freely. Free speech does not mean freedom from having your speech acts criticized (quite the opposite; it includes freedom of others to criticize your speech acts.) And, yes, it means that your speech acts may affect your ability to hold a job where you are one of the major public faces of an organization (such as its CEO) and are not capable of dealing with the PR resulting from the association of those speech acts with a public face of the corporation (the same as it would if you couldn't deal with any other PR issue affecting the corporation, even if it wasn't resulting from your speech acts.)

dudul 11y ago
[Edit: the parent was edited after my comment, making it off-topic.]
DrJokepu 11y ago
This is a frequently repeated argument and I find it less and less convincing. It is true that America's constitution only guarantees the congress will not abridge the freedom of speech. However, an argument could be made that in a free society there's a fundamental right to have a dissenting opinion or voice; a right that is not codified by the constitution because it's simply irrelevant to a constitution. It seems to me that it's up to all of us to tolerate non-extreme dissenting voices, even if we disagree with them.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > However, an argument could be made that in a free society there's a fundamental right to have a dissenting opinion or voice Of course, there is a fundamental right to have (and express) a dissenting opinion or voice. There is also a fundamental right to have (and express) displeasure with an opinion or voice, whether dissenting or not. And there is no fundamental entitlement to a job whose responsibilities include managing the public image of a corporation, and if you are unable to do that in the real circumstances and public image problems the corporation faces, whether or not your own speech acts are the source of that PR problem, you shouldn't expect to continue to have that job.
  - ElComradio 11y ago
    The problem is that the current system in practice legally protects certain opinions. E.g. If Eich was pro gay marriage and vocally so, firing him on that basis would have been very risky legally. Especially if he was gay, it would probably be impossible to fire him without losing an expensive lawsuit afterwards.
    - nkassis 11y ago
      I don't think legally but more politically and PR wise. There a difference between firing someone for making donations to pro-X groups and firing someone for being X. In this hypothetical scenario, Eich would have to prove he was fired for being gay instead of for making a public donation that support a group and leads to potential blowback against the company. It's bad either way. Mozilla had a no win situation here. They got bad PR from both sides.
      - ElComradio 11y ago
        Forget about whether it has blowback against the company- It's totally legal AFAIK to fire someone for their "off the clock" speech for any or no reason at all. In reality, though, I think a jury would be very skeptical of a company's claims that someone was fired for promoting the gay agenda (which would be legal) and not for being a gay person.
  - DrJokepu 11y ago
    I mean, yes, you're right, but surely, if voicing a dissenting opinion will damage or outright destroy your career, then unless you're extremely privileged and can afford to take the hit, you can't really do it, even if technically you have the right, can you? Technological advances such as social media make vilifying dissenting views (and the people who express them) cheaper and more effective than ever before. There must be some kind of a balance between the right to dissent and the right to "have a displeasure with an opinion" as you said, and I feel like the way things are going now, it doesn't look like we have found that balance. Ultimately a healthy society will need both.
  - deleted 11y ago
- ElComradio 11y ago
  A way to address this might be to add "political opinions" to the list of protected classes. It is undeniably bad for a democracy (I know I know, we aren't technically a democracy) where people aren't free in practice to discuss contentious issues. As currently stands, you can stand in the town square and promote affirmative action it would be very risky legally to fire you. But if you get up and argue for the repeal of some affirmative action legislation you can be safely fired with no objection from legal.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > As currently stands, you can stand in the town square and promote affirmative action it would be very risky legally to fire you. But if you get up and argue for the repeal of some affirmative action legislation you can be safely fired with no objection from legal. Legally, promoting either of those opinions is subject to exactly the same degree of protection. The willingness of a particular employer to accept the legal risk maybe different between them, but that's a different issue than the law itself.
    - ElComradio 11y ago
      That in practice it does not work as intended means it is bad law and needs tweaked. One way would be to say that all behavior "off the clock" and all attributes of a person not related to the job are protected. Another way would be to say nothing is protected. Right now we have a middle ground that plays favorites.
      - dragonwriter 11y ago
        > That in practice it does not work as intended means it is bad law and needs tweaked. In what specific, concrete ways does it not work out the way you think it is intended? > One way would be to say that all behavior "off the clock" and all attributes of a person not related to the job are protected. Another way would be to say nothing is protected. Those are obviously potential rules, but I don't see that either of them is closer to any reasonable interpretation of the intended result that antidiscrimination laws are intended to serve.
- maratd 11y ago
  > However, an argument could be made that in a free society there's a fundamental right to have a dissenting opinion or voice Since we're not talking about the constitution, which strictly relates to government and public property, then we're talking about private entities and private property. You do not have the right to speak on my property. Forcing that is in direct contradiction to a free society that has a concept of private property. I am all for fostering tolerance to offensive speech, but not at the expensive of destroying the concept of private ownership. It is absolutely not a fundamental right. It should be a social norm, but that's all it should be. > It seems to me that it's up to all of us to tolerate non-extreme dissenting voices Who gets to define what is and is not extreme? Freedom of expression means tolerating something offensive by definition. If it's not offensive, it doesn't need to be tolerated.
  - caseysoftware 11y ago
    And thus you have the shifting definition of what is "extreme" or not. Then again, if you keep chopping off the edges of the bell curve, everything that doesn't precisely match the middle is extreme by comparison.
  - venomsnake 11y ago
    >Since we're not talking about the constitution, which strictly relates to government and public property, then we're talking about private entities and private property. Except a lot of private entities receive a lot of money from the federal government - either as subsidies, tax breaks or programs. So they should abide by the rules of the government too. Giving public money to entities that not view the first amendment as obligatory for them - that is wrong for me.
twoodfin 11y ago
Sure, it's a free country for everybody. But, IMHO, the threshold for taking arguments outside the political arena and into the realm of boycotts and demands for resignations should be a lot higher than it seems to be today. Otherwise vibrant, productive arguments don't happen, since everyone's concentrating on bankrupting the other side of money, "platforms", or legitimacy.
- xtian 11y ago
  The more the political arena is dominated by money and marketing, the more people will use that language to make their voices heard.
- curiousgeorgio 11y ago
  This is the reason I keep two HN accounts - I fear that any political comments I make here could jeopardize my professional life (about which I contribute fairly often). Online, that's a fairly easy thing to manage. In real life, it means I really have to walk on eggshells a lot, and I seldom participate in voicing my opinions (or supporting certain causes) in which I'd otherwise participate, solely out of fear. In many cases, you can keep your personal views and professional life isolated, but not always. Maybe it's an irrational fear, but then again, in today's political climate it seems foolish not to worry about that. And if that need to self-censor isn't cause for concern, I don't know what is.
  - cozuya 11y ago
    I view HN as a forum for professionals so I don't make comments that could negatively impact my professional life here. In that way I think self censure is fine. If you don't agree with my assessment thats fine as well of course. Of course most of the sparse comments I make here are dumb jokes...
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      The point is, thanks to Social Justice Warriors, you never know what comment could affect your career. Expressing opinion about merits of Angular.js is probably safe. But anything that involves gender - a study, or a remark about distribution of men and women in tech industry - is not to be touched with a ten foot pole if you value your employability. It takes very little to become a victim of a Twitter outrage.
nine_k 11y ago
While their behavior was entirely legal and protected by the First Amendment, the problem lies elsewhere. It's in the utter lack of tolerance to the views not conforming to the group's, not unlike the reaction religious extremists would display. Can't help but quote: -- The Emperor summons before him Bodhidharma and asks: “Master, I have been tolerant of innumerable gays, lesbians, bisexuals, asexuals, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, transgender people, and Jews. How many Tolerance Points have I earned for my meritorious deeds?” Bodhidharma answers: “None at all”. The Emperor, somewhat put out, demands to know why not. Bodhidharma asks: “Well, what do you think of gay people?” The Emperor answers: “What do you think I am, some kind of homophobic bigot? Of course I have nothing against gay people!” And Bodhidharma answers: “Thus do you gain no merit by tolerating them!” -- (http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything...)
- lern_too_spel 11y ago
  You seem to have bought into fair and balanced horseshit. There are certain views that are morally superior to others, just as there are certain hamburgers that are better than others. Taking rights away from other people loosely based on ancient superstitions (the Bible says nothing about allowing gays to marry but says a lot about how to punish them -- the only reason Eich and his ilk aren't politically promoting the punishments is that our secular society would rightfully come down even harder on them then) is not something that should be a protected viewpoint, just as promoting the idea that Jews (as a race) should not have property rights is something that should not be tolerated. Had Eich done something that was morally neutral, everybody would have stood up for his right to do that, as well they should. That's not what he did though.
  - refurb 11y ago
    There are certain views that are morally superior to others Whose morals? Back in the 1800's in the South it was generally viewed as moral to have slaves. Was that right?
    - 11y ago
nickff 11y ago
Would you then also argue that the Hollywood blacklist was morally unassailable?[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  I didn't argue that anything was morally unassailable. That freedom of speech includes freedom of speech criticizing others' speech acts does not mean that all speech is morally equal. Nor, in any case, was the Hollywood blacklist a speech act; it was a conspiracy in restraint of trade.
  - nickff 11y ago
    Do you think that this corporate executive will be hired in a similar role from which he was let go? If not, how is this functionally different from a blacklist (or "conspiracy in restraint of trade")?
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      Since he is currently CEO of a technology company, I don't think it's anything like an industry blacklist, in effect (obviously, its nothing like it in structure, either.)
      - nickff 11y ago
        Being forced to leave one of the most influential software developers, and go start a new small startup is comparable to being forced out of the major studios and starting your own. I fail to see any significant difference between what happened at Mozilla and the Hollywood blacklist.
sliverstorm 11y ago
I'm not a master enough of this subject to form a detailed argument, but I hope we can agree there is a line somewhere between civil criticism and a lynching. Especially, IMO, in the case of a ballot issue. Are we trying to coerce people to vote the way we want them to? That's unconscionable to me.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > I'm not a master enough of this subject to form a detailed argument, but I hope we can agree there is a line somewhere between civil criticism and a lynching. Yes, there is, and what Eich experienced was not only not a lynching [0], it was quite far from the line that separates criticism from lynching. [0] in case there is a lack of clarity, this is a lynching: http://abhmuseum.org/2012/01/an-iconic-lynching-in-the-north/ http://abhmuseum.org/2012/01/an-iconic-lynching-in-the-north...
  - sliverstorm 11y ago
    it was quite far from the line that separates criticism from lynching. Where do you believe that line is? He certainly experienced mob justice in some form.
ta0o0o0 11y ago
Yes, of course Eich's critics had the right to criticize him. The point is that calling for his resignation was grossly disproportionate.
- kafkaesq 11y ago
  The point is that calling for his resignation was grossly disproportionate. Depends where you draw the line. Many people feel that when Eich chose to support groups that were running bigoted TV ads (beyond simply expressing an opinion as to a ballot issue) he effectively crossed that line.
  - ta0o0o0 11y ago
    And others feel that a person who can make this statement: https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/ https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/ ...I know some will be skeptical about this, and that words alone will not change anything. I can only ask for your support to have the time to "show, not tell"; and in the meantime express my sorrow at having caused pain. ... and who has never even been accused of discrimination, harassment, or abuse of any kind in his professional capacity (or otherwise AFAIK) should be given the chance to prove himself. I'm pretty sure they didn't send the ads out for the approval of every campaign contributor before they aired them.
    - kafkaesq 11y ago
      Eich's statement in that posting is indeed a valid, mitigating factor in his favor. He could have done more, by addressing the issue of the TV ads directly. By not doing so, people had reason to believe he was sidestepping that key issue (and that he may not really understand why people were offended by those ads).
      - ta0o0o0 11y ago
        What can I say, that is just not the world I want to live in. A world in which your defeated [1] political opponents must repent, wear sackcloth, and cast ashes in their hair or else be professionally destroyed. [1] Proposition 8 had been struck down by the time of Eich's appointment to CEO
BurningFrog 11y ago
Yes, the Eich takedown was entirely legal. No one claims it wasn't. You're missing the point.
overcyn 11y ago
Other people in this thread have already expressed my opinion far more eloquently than I could have. But I am wondering, do you think the protests that lead to the resignation of Claremont McKenna's dean is appropriate (besides the legalistic sense)? And if not, why is it different from the pressure that lead Brandon Eich to resign?
thelastguy 11y ago
If you're a CEO and you're purposely creating a toxic work environment by continuously saying racist things to your workers, then obviously, you deserve to get fired. But hell no you should not deserve to get fired for donating to the Republican Party. You have the right to donate to whichever LEGAL organization you want.

ZeroGravitas 11y ago

Ironic that you've censored yourself rather than state what he donated money towards.

scott_karana 11y ago
I think they're trying to make the point that it's not relevant.
- krainboltgreene 11y ago
  Like, if he had donated to Save Kittens & Dogs foundation no one would have cared. So yeah, it's obviously relevant and I doubt they were making any specific point.
albedoa 11y ago
While simultaneously appealing to a majority.

rspeer 11y ago

Money is not speech, it's money. People were angry at Eich because he spent money opposing a cause they supported. Brandon Eich is not an example of anything this article is about. It's much more straightforward: if you do things people don't like, those people won't like you.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
sremani 11y ago
Brandon Eich episode speaks volumes, esp. since he was at the winning side of the Popular Vote. Tinder did not walk away for CA after Prop 8 was won. I really do not know a single state including CA and OR, where gay marriage actually garnered Popular majority. Now the debate about whether something like that should be up for Vote is different and one I have no much domain knowledge. The fact was Brandon Eich's political belief were not fringe or extremist and more alignment to the times, is the case for NOT bullying him out of his Executive Office in Mozilla. For a organization that wants to stand up against Big Bad Governments and Corporations, Mozilla capitulated to a PC vocal minority. This has emboldened "Crybullies" of all shapes and forms including the ones in Yale. note:I am for Gay Marriage but I am against bullying people who are not for it.
- wldcordeiro 11y ago
  I was of the opinion that people should have at least given him a chance, he stated that he would respect the Mozilla policies of openness and put his personal beliefs aside and I would have liked to at least see him try.
- thrownaway2424 11y ago
  The "PC vocal minority" were Mozilla's own employees and contributors. You can say what you like about the California electorate as a whole but to be against gay marriage in San Francisco is to be an asshole. Eich should have known he was endangering Mozilla's ability to attract and retain talent and outside contributions.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

albedoa 11y ago

The conversations about Brandon Eich and his views regrettably died down before the Donald Sterling incident. I am still curious today where defenders of Eich fall in the controversy over Sterling. Will anyone who defends Eich or is critical of his detractors come out and say that Sterling should not have received the wrath of the media and public and should not have been punished for expressing his views? Or does your position shift based on the opinion being expressed by either man? Are there materialistic differences between these men and their beliefs?

defen 11y ago
Donald Sterling, 80 year old man in the early stages of Alzheimer's, has a private one-on-one conversation with a "trusted" person secretly recorded by that person, which results in his being banned for life from the NBA and forced to sell his team. To me that's literally one step away from thought-crime. If we had magical mind-reading technology that could prove Donald Sterling was prejudiced against black people, but he never took any actions[1] or spoke any words based on that, should we strip him of his team? [1] I know about the housing discrimination lawsuit; I'm leaving it out of this analysis because the NBA clearly didn't care about it until the secret recording made Sterling a pariah.
vox_mollis 11y ago
Will anyone who defends Eich or is critical of his detractors come out and say that Sterling should not have received the wrath of the media Absolutely. Both men were pilloried by mob justice for PRIVATELY holding unpopular opinions.
- yawaramin 11y ago
  Well, you haven't exactly come out and said anything, given that you've posted under a pseudonym....
GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
Now don’t be silly Who the fuck gon' bully me if I got a billi? If I got a billi and they're recording me I’m like who cares What I wouldn’t be is on TV stutterin' ta-ta-talkin' scared

ossreality 11y ago

HOW DOES NO ONE UNDERSTAND WHAT FREE SPEECH ACTUALLY MEANS?! Free speech, to anyone who leans conservative, means their right to say offensive bullshit free of any consequences. Someone else uses their agency or free speech to exclude your disgusting speech? WELL GUESS WHAT? That's free speech too.

roymurdock 11y ago

As an individual you are free to say whatever you please. As the CEO of a large organization, you are not. You are the face and voice of an organization. You speak for its employees and you are accountable to its shareholders. You are held to a higher standard and your every word/action is scrutinized. If your shareholders are afraid that your speech/actions will hurt the bottom line of the company, you will be removed from your position.

gohrt 11y ago
Yes, we know. Profit != Justice
- roymurdock 11y ago
  What exactly is your argument? If you have strong views, you can express them in private, or you can head an organization that is dedicated to/aligned with those views. Freedom to say whatever you want, whenever is not justice either.

kafkaesq 11y ago

Ugh. The Brendan Eich issue was about freedom of association -- in particular, the right of Mozilla employees and stakeholders not to be associated with the bigoted groups (and their hateful TV ads) Eich was supporting -- rather than freedom of speech. If you're still not clear as to the distinction, please see: https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/

gohrt 11y ago
What about the freedom of Brendan Eich to associate with his employees and stakeholders who wanted a better web browser? Note that Eich was NOT opposed by his employees. He was opposed by outside activists. I don't see the current CEO of Mozilla resigning because they are meat-eaters, which, as a Firefox user, I find deeply offensive.
bsamuels 11y ago
responding to someone's opinion with "Ugh." is exactly what the op article is about
- kafkaesq 11y ago
  It's not their opinion that merits the "Ugh." It's that people seem to be perpetually misinformed about many basic factors regarding the Eich case.
  - lern_too_spel 11y ago
    People hate to have their heroes torn down, even if their hero is just the creator of a fifth-rate programming language that nobody would willingly use if it weren't the only available zero-compile option on Berners-Lee's juggernaut of an application platform. Turing's suicide is merely a distant memory.
sinxoveretothex 11y ago
I think that the "association" in "Freedom of association" means the right to get with people (associate as in form a group). The "association" that you speak of is a different concept: figurative association (how people compare or liken groups one to the other). I do not think that it is right to conclude something about the one based on the other.