5 ms·

He didn’t not support gay marriage, he actively gave money to oppose it. That’s a little different.

core-questions 7y ago
It doesn't matter - it's legal, protected political speech in donation form. There's nothing wrong with having differing opinions about things; you can disagree as much as you like and donate as much as you want to counter it.
- big_chungus 7y ago
  You're right, it absolutely is. The corollary to this is that no one has to hire him/work with him; they're allowed to fire him for his legally-protected speech. I don't agree with how it was handled either, but we must protect their freedom to act as they choose as much as Mr. Eich's freedom to speak as he chooses.
  - core-questions 7y ago
    Oh, sure, until it ends up in the situation where you have to prove your perfect ideological allegiance to the Party in order to have employment. It's already the case that you can't publicly post things without getting dox'd and fired for a lot of opinions that were 100% the norm not that long ago. You may call it progress, but the progression is towards totalitarian liberalism; your gay marriage is really not going to make that experience that much better once they find some place where you're not faithful enough. For example, what if you're a white gay male?
  - BrendanEich 7y ago
    You've been downvoted; I sympathize. While you stick to "speech", I think you miss two things, one about speech and the other from a different area of law: 1. Free speech is not just a U.S. 1st Amendment issue, and who cares what else goes wrong at subsidiary levels. From the Committee for the First Amendment (Humphrey Bogard had to disavow under HUAC pressure; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_for_the_First_Amendment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_for_the_First_Amendm...) on, depending on whose ox was being gored, both left and right have decried "chilling effects" of less than federal censorship effects on free speech. Cory Doctorow had a good piece on this recently: https://locusmag.com/2020/01/cory-doctorow-inaction-is-a-form-of-action/ https://locusmag.com/2020/01/cory-doctorow-inaction-is-a-for... Cory covers the full space, including corporate censorship of dissidents of all political stripes, corporate capture via monopolies and market super-powers, etc. Recommended. 2. California has labor law from the New Deal era, which protects employees from being fired or demoted due to political affiliation, participation, or any action including speech: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=LAB&sectionNum=1101 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio... https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=LAB&sectionNum=1102 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio... So it's not just as simple as your downvoted post seems to say.
    - useragent86 7y ago
      Respectfully, with full benefit of hindsight, do you think it would have been better if you had stayed at Mozilla, forcing them to either fire you (which would have been illegal) or learn to deal with dissent? I ask not to criticize but to strategize. Thanks for standing up and fighting these good fights.
      - BrendanEich 7y ago
        I cannot comment on anything about what happened, sorry.
        BrendanEich 7y ago
        (I could not possibly comment, but students of constructive separation might possibly draw conclusions on their own.)
        useragent86 7y ago
        Thanks.
  - baud147258 7y ago
    Oh, sure, until it ends up in the situation where you have to prove your perfect ideological allegiance to the Party in order to have employment. It's already the case that you can't publicly post things without getting dox'd and fired for a lot of opinions that were 100% the norm not that long ago. You may call it progress, but the progression is towards totalitarian liberalism; your gay marriage is really not going to make that experience that much better once they find some place where you're not faithful enough. For example, what if you're a white gay male?
- bduerst 7y ago
  Appeal to legality isn't proof of moral superiority. Racial segregation was also legal via Jim Crow laws, and people still hold the political opinion it should still be despite society changing and moving forward. It is also not censorship nor is it illegal to terminate employment with someone based on their political actions.
  - core-questions 7y ago
    > Appeal to legality isn't proof of moral superiority. Then why was it so important for gay marriage to have legal blessing? > It is also not censorship nor is it illegal to terminate employment with someone based on their political actions. It is if it becomes the norm (and it has, and it has lead to a Chilling Effect, and the blowback is going to be tremendous).
    - bduerst 7y ago
      > Then why was it so important for gay marriage to have legal blessing? Because it is currently illegal in many places? >It is if it becomes the norm (and it has, and it has lead to a Chilling Effect, and the blowback is going to be tremendous). Which is a slippery slope fallacy. Political views are not and have not ever been protected classes.
    - Ryckes 7y ago
      > > Appeal to legality isn't proof of moral superiority. > Then why was it so important for gay marriage to have legal blessing? Are you suggesting that the only reason to legalize something is to get a legal stamp on it being moral? The main reason is to stop discrimination.
  - manfredo 7y ago
    > It is also not censorship nor is it illegal to terminate employment with someone based on their political actions. It is in California: https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/state-and-local-updates/pages/employers,-politics-and-free-speech-in-california.aspx https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/...
- modo_mario 7y ago
  Here's an equally correct example invoking Godwin's law. >Why yes I do donate lots to the ANP. >Why? Well they align with my love for Hitler, racial purity and fascism. >What do you mean the board things this'll make jewish employees uncomfortable? >A wider range of customers/employees won't like it either? >So what. It's legal, protected political speech in donation form! Nobody gives a fuck. It's equally legal to not want to associate with such a person. Whether it's a racist or someone that wants to ban gay marriage, etc i wouldn't to work for them, with them or fund them. And guess what. I don't expect the Mormon church or whatever to put part of a gay couple or an advocate or donor for related stuff in an executive position either.

It doesn't matter - it's legal, protected political speech in donation form. There's nothing wrong with having differing opinions about things; you can disagree as much as you like and donate as much as you want to counter it.

big_chungus 7y ago
You're right, it absolutely is. The corollary to this is that no one has to hire him/work with him; they're allowed to fire him for his legally-protected speech. I don't agree with how it was handled either, but we must protect their freedom to act as they choose as much as Mr. Eich's freedom to speak as he chooses.
- core-questions 7y ago
  Oh, sure, until it ends up in the situation where you have to prove your perfect ideological allegiance to the Party in order to have employment. It's already the case that you can't publicly post things without getting dox'd and fired for a lot of opinions that were 100% the norm not that long ago. You may call it progress, but the progression is towards totalitarian liberalism; your gay marriage is really not going to make that experience that much better once they find some place where you're not faithful enough. For example, what if you're a white gay male?
- BrendanEich 7y ago
  You've been downvoted; I sympathize. While you stick to "speech", I think you miss two things, one about speech and the other from a different area of law: 1. Free speech is not just a U.S. 1st Amendment issue, and who cares what else goes wrong at subsidiary levels. From the Committee for the First Amendment (Humphrey Bogard had to disavow under HUAC pressure; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_for_the_First_Amendment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_for_the_First_Amendm...) on, depending on whose ox was being gored, both left and right have decried "chilling effects" of less than federal censorship effects on free speech. Cory Doctorow had a good piece on this recently: https://locusmag.com/2020/01/cory-doctorow-inaction-is-a-form-of-action/ https://locusmag.com/2020/01/cory-doctorow-inaction-is-a-for... Cory covers the full space, including corporate censorship of dissidents of all political stripes, corporate capture via monopolies and market super-powers, etc. Recommended. 2. California has labor law from the New Deal era, which protects employees from being fired or demoted due to political affiliation, participation, or any action including speech: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=LAB&sectionNum=1101 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio... https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=LAB&sectionNum=1102 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio... So it's not just as simple as your downvoted post seems to say.
  - useragent86 7y ago
    Respectfully, with full benefit of hindsight, do you think it would have been better if you had stayed at Mozilla, forcing them to either fire you (which would have been illegal) or learn to deal with dissent? I ask not to criticize but to strategize. Thanks for standing up and fighting these good fights.
    - BrendanEich 7y ago
      I cannot comment on anything about what happened, sorry.
      - BrendanEich 7y ago
        (I could not possibly comment, but students of constructive separation might possibly draw conclusions on their own.)
        useragent86 7y ago
        Thanks.
- baud147258 7y ago
  Oh, sure, until it ends up in the situation where you have to prove your perfect ideological allegiance to the Party in order to have employment. It's already the case that you can't publicly post things without getting dox'd and fired for a lot of opinions that were 100% the norm not that long ago. You may call it progress, but the progression is towards totalitarian liberalism; your gay marriage is really not going to make that experience that much better once they find some place where you're not faithful enough. For example, what if you're a white gay male?
bduerst 7y ago
Appeal to legality isn't proof of moral superiority. Racial segregation was also legal via Jim Crow laws, and people still hold the political opinion it should still be despite society changing and moving forward. It is also not censorship nor is it illegal to terminate employment with someone based on their political actions.
- core-questions 7y ago
  > Appeal to legality isn't proof of moral superiority. Then why was it so important for gay marriage to have legal blessing? > It is also not censorship nor is it illegal to terminate employment with someone based on their political actions. It is if it becomes the norm (and it has, and it has lead to a Chilling Effect, and the blowback is going to be tremendous).
  - bduerst 7y ago
    > Then why was it so important for gay marriage to have legal blessing? Because it is currently illegal in many places? >It is if it becomes the norm (and it has, and it has lead to a Chilling Effect, and the blowback is going to be tremendous). Which is a slippery slope fallacy. Political views are not and have not ever been protected classes.
  - Ryckes 7y ago
    > > Appeal to legality isn't proof of moral superiority. > Then why was it so important for gay marriage to have legal blessing? Are you suggesting that the only reason to legalize something is to get a legal stamp on it being moral? The main reason is to stop discrimination.
- manfredo 7y ago
  > It is also not censorship nor is it illegal to terminate employment with someone based on their political actions. It is in California: https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/state-and-local-updates/pages/employers,-politics-and-free-speech-in-california.aspx https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/...
modo_mario 7y ago
Here's an equally correct example invoking Godwin's law. >Why yes I do donate lots to the ANP. >Why? Well they align with my love for Hitler, racial purity and fascism. >What do you mean the board things this'll make jewish employees uncomfortable? >A wider range of customers/employees won't like it either? >So what. It's legal, protected political speech in donation form! Nobody gives a fuck. It's equally legal to not want to associate with such a person. Whether it's a racist or someone that wants to ban gay marriage, etc i wouldn't to work for them, with them or fund them. And guess what. I don't expect the Mormon church or whatever to put part of a gay couple or an advocate or donor for related stuff in an executive position either.