5 ms·

Brendan Eich was damaging his company's reputation and, ultimately, economic prospects, by taking a public stance against marriage equality. His resignation is

by erispoe 10y ago

Brendan Eich was damaging his company's reputation and, ultimately, economic prospects, by taking a public stance against marriage equality. His resignation is not a moral issue, his public support of the marriage equality ban was economically damaging to the company. When a CEO's freedom of speech damages their company economically, what are shareholders supposed to do? Bear the cost so that the CEO can express their views?

tocotuno 10y ago
>His resignation is not a moral issue, his public support of the marriage equality ban was economically damaging to the company. That's funny, Mozilla is just getting worse and worse since he was forced to leave.
gkoberger 10y ago
(Slight nitpick: Mozilla Corporation only has one financial shareholder, the Mozilla Foundation. It's a for-profit corporation that's a wholly owned subsidiary of the non-profit Mozilla Foundation. It has stakeholders it answers to, such as the board of directors, but no shareholders.)
ac29 10y ago
>When a CEO's freedom of speech damages their company economically, what are shareholders supposed to do? A fair question, but Mozilla has no shareholders. It is a non-profit[0][1]. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Foundation
edanm 10y ago
Just to clarify - his support wasn't public. It was a private donation, which was made public via journalists IIRC. As far as I know, he never publicly commented on the issue, at least before the firing.
- erispoe 10y ago
  Campaign contributions are public. His contribution to Prop 8 was always public. You can access all campaign contributions above $100, it's just a matter of downloading a file. Edit: the Supreme Court judged that political contributions are a form of political speech. That is the reasoning behind striking down limitations to contribute. [1] If you downvote, care to explain if you think I'm reading these decisions wrong, or do you disagree with the Supreme Court? [1]: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/03/us/politics/supreme-court-ruling-on-campaign-contributions.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/03/us/politics/supreme-court-...
  - tanderson92 10y ago
    > If you downvote, care to explain if you think I'm reading these decisions wrong, or do you disagree with the Supreme Court? Yes, along with the majority of the country.

by erispoe 10y ago

tocotuno 10y ago

>His resignation is not a moral issue, his public support of the marriage equality ban was economically damaging to the company. That's funny, Mozilla is just getting worse and worse since he was forced to leave.

gkoberger 10y ago

(Slight nitpick: Mozilla Corporation only has one financial shareholder, the Mozilla Foundation. It's a for-profit corporation that's a wholly owned subsidiary of the non-profit Mozilla Foundation. It has stakeholders it answers to, such as the board of directors, but no shareholders.)

ac29 10y ago

>When a CEO's freedom of speech damages their company economically, what are shareholders supposed to do? A fair question, but Mozilla has no shareholders. It is a non-profit[0][1]. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Foundation

edanm 10y ago

Just to clarify - his support wasn't public. It was a private donation, which was made public via journalists IIRC. As far as I know, he never publicly commented on the issue, at least before the firing.

erispoe 10y ago
Campaign contributions are public. His contribution to Prop 8 was always public. You can access all campaign contributions above $100, it's just a matter of downloading a file. Edit: the Supreme Court judged that political contributions are a form of political speech. That is the reasoning behind striking down limitations to contribute. [1] If you downvote, care to explain if you think I'm reading these decisions wrong, or do you disagree with the Supreme Court? [1]: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/03/us/politics/supreme-court-ruling-on-campaign-contributions.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/03/us/politics/supreme-court-...
- tanderson92 10y ago
  > If you downvote, care to explain if you think I'm reading these decisions wrong, or do you disagree with the Supreme Court? Yes, along with the majority of the country.