4 ms·

Not sure why people always bring up "freedom of speech" in these types of scenarios. You can say what you want without going to jail; that's freedom of speech.

by cglee 13y ago

Not sure why people always bring up "freedom of speech" in these types of scenarios. You can say what you want without going to jail; that's freedom of speech. It doesn't mean you won't feel social consequences.

Aloha 13y ago
I'm an openly gay male, I came out at 15. Why should there be social or employment consequences - in my mind this is just as bad as when employers fire employees for being gay.
- homulilly 13y ago
  Being gay and being a bigot are not comparable, that's insane.
  - themoonbus 13y ago
    Being a bigot is a lifestyle choice, and I don't support it (this is just a joke)
  - fleitz 13y ago
    I think what he's getting at is that you shouldn't suffer work consequences for opinions that you hold outside of work. Alternatively, maybe we can decide on a set of American values and we can investigate and blackball people who hold unamerican views.
    - homulilly 13y ago
      Things like this are about ethics, not "American Values" or any cultural norms. It used to be the cultural norm to be a white supremacist but that position as never actually been ethical. Additionally, in this specific case it's worth noting that the Mozilla Foundation and its subsidiary the Mozilla Corporation are largely political organizations and someone who holds such obviously bigoted views is pretty clearly unqualified to lead an organization who's goals are freedom and openness.
      - fleitz 13y ago
        Since you think ethics are absolute and unchanging, can you please tell the rest of us what the one true ethical code is? I'm pretty sure a much more reasonable interpretation is that ethics are subject to cultural norms, and that we should not decide on one true version of ethics and force that upon everyone.
        homulilly 13y ago
        Obviously there is too much detail and history to lay out the Correct Ethical Choice for every single situation ever, but stuff like "give people equal rights," which is what we are talking about in this case, should be incredibly obvious to any reasonable person these days and judging by the backlash against Eich's appointment to CEO, that seems to be the case.
- lordCarbonFiber 13y ago
  The main point here is the notion of protected class. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class In the United States protected classes are predominately traits upon which the individual has no control over (the notable exception being religion, pregnancy, and veteran status which are present because of constitutional and social value reasoning). Because of this line of logic egalitarians in this country support moving sexual preference as a protected class. Holding opinions (for whatever reason, you don't get to hide behind religion on that one) is on you and if that causes your employer to look bad or runs against what they stand for it is perfectly reasonable to expect to be let go.
- dalke 13y ago
  http://www.popehat.com/2013/09/10/speech-and-consequences/ http://www.popehat.com/2013/09/10/speech-and-consequences/ describes it well: > Speech is designed to invoke private and social consequences, whether the speech is "venti mocha no whip, please," or "I love you," or "fuck off." The private and social consequences of your speech — whether they come from a barista, or your spouse, or people online, or people at whom you shout on the street — represent the free speech and freedom of association of others. > Yet people often confuse these categories. I believe you are making the same confusion between the right of free speech - Eich can support a political position - and the freedom of association so employees of Mozilla and OKCupid need not be associated with a company that has Eich at its head. (In the employees' case, the right to quit.) There can be and is a tension there. As a country we have said that the right of free association is limited while at work, and that certain factors - race, religion, country of origin, etc. - cannot be used to discriminate between employees. But other factors, like disrupting the office every hour on the hour for a boisterous rendition of the National Anthem, can be grounds for punitive action.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - Aloha 13y ago
    Exercising Freedom of Speech and Association shouldn't open one up to trial by public opinion - we did this once before, McCarthyism and the blacklist in the 50's - I'd rather not see us ever return to an era where there are bogymen lurking in the corners. As much as I strongly disagree with the Prop 8 folks, I think resorting to trying them in the court of public opinion is fundamentally wrong.
    - dalke 13y ago
      Could you tell me how 'trial by public opinion' in this case is different than a call for a boycott or picketing? That is, I assume that you think people should have a right to boycott and picket. Those are well protected free speech rights in the US. McCarthyism and the blacklist involved decades of government pressure, including passing various laws against Communists at both state and national levels. The blacklist specifically started after various people were cited for contempt of Congress for refusing to testify to the House Committee on Un-American Activities. That's hardly the same as a few organizations calling for a boycott of Firefox and a few people threatening to quit their jobs at or stop volunteering for Mozilla, is it?

by cglee 13y ago

Aloha 13y ago

I'm an openly gay male, I came out at 15. Why should there be social or employment consequences - in my mind this is just as bad as when employers fire employees for being gay.

homulilly 13y ago
Being gay and being a bigot are not comparable, that's insane.
- themoonbus 13y ago
  Being a bigot is a lifestyle choice, and I don't support it (this is just a joke)
- fleitz 13y ago
  I think what he's getting at is that you shouldn't suffer work consequences for opinions that you hold outside of work. Alternatively, maybe we can decide on a set of American values and we can investigate and blackball people who hold unamerican views.
  - homulilly 13y ago
    Things like this are about ethics, not "American Values" or any cultural norms. It used to be the cultural norm to be a white supremacist but that position as never actually been ethical. Additionally, in this specific case it's worth noting that the Mozilla Foundation and its subsidiary the Mozilla Corporation are largely political organizations and someone who holds such obviously bigoted views is pretty clearly unqualified to lead an organization who's goals are freedom and openness.
    - fleitz 13y ago
      Since you think ethics are absolute and unchanging, can you please tell the rest of us what the one true ethical code is? I'm pretty sure a much more reasonable interpretation is that ethics are subject to cultural norms, and that we should not decide on one true version of ethics and force that upon everyone.
      - homulilly 13y ago
        Obviously there is too much detail and history to lay out the Correct Ethical Choice for every single situation ever, but stuff like "give people equal rights," which is what we are talking about in this case, should be incredibly obvious to any reasonable person these days and judging by the backlash against Eich's appointment to CEO, that seems to be the case.
lordCarbonFiber 13y ago
The main point here is the notion of protected class. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class In the United States protected classes are predominately traits upon which the individual has no control over (the notable exception being religion, pregnancy, and veteran status which are present because of constitutional and social value reasoning). Because of this line of logic egalitarians in this country support moving sexual preference as a protected class. Holding opinions (for whatever reason, you don't get to hide behind religion on that one) is on you and if that causes your employer to look bad or runs against what they stand for it is perfectly reasonable to expect to be let go.
dalke 13y ago
http://www.popehat.com/2013/09/10/speech-and-consequences/ http://www.popehat.com/2013/09/10/speech-and-consequences/ describes it well: > Speech is designed to invoke private and social consequences, whether the speech is "venti mocha no whip, please," or "I love you," or "fuck off." The private and social consequences of your speech — whether they come from a barista, or your spouse, or people online, or people at whom you shout on the street — represent the free speech and freedom of association of others. > Yet people often confuse these categories. I believe you are making the same confusion between the right of free speech - Eich can support a political position - and the freedom of association so employees of Mozilla and OKCupid need not be associated with a company that has Eich at its head. (In the employees' case, the right to quit.) There can be and is a tension there. As a country we have said that the right of free association is limited while at work, and that certain factors - race, religion, country of origin, etc. - cannot be used to discriminate between employees. But other factors, like disrupting the office every hour on the hour for a boisterous rendition of the National Anthem, can be grounds for punitive action.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- Aloha 13y ago
  Exercising Freedom of Speech and Association shouldn't open one up to trial by public opinion - we did this once before, McCarthyism and the blacklist in the 50's - I'd rather not see us ever return to an era where there are bogymen lurking in the corners. As much as I strongly disagree with the Prop 8 folks, I think resorting to trying them in the court of public opinion is fundamentally wrong.
  - dalke 13y ago
    Could you tell me how 'trial by public opinion' in this case is different than a call for a boycott or picketing? That is, I assume that you think people should have a right to boycott and picket. Those are well protected free speech rights in the US. McCarthyism and the blacklist involved decades of government pressure, including passing various laws against Communists at both state and national levels. The blacklist specifically started after various people were cited for contempt of Congress for refusing to testify to the House Committee on Un-American Activities. That's hardly the same as a few organizations calling for a boycott of Firefox and a few people threatening to quit their jobs at or stop volunteering for Mozilla, is it?