4 ms·

My father-in-law is a high-level official in the "Alliance Defending Freedom", which is essentially the conservative counterpart to the ACLU, providing legal ad

by xaa 13y ago

My father-in-law is a high-level official in the "Alliance Defending Freedom", which is essentially the conservative counterpart to the ACLU, providing legal advice to conservative causes. For years, he's been telling me about the "gay liberal agenda", which, to him, was not just about promoting gay rights, but also about silencing any freedom of speech advocating opposing viewpoints. I always pooh-poohed him and gently asserted that he was on the wrong side of history. Now, I think he's right. That someone can be ousted from their job because of privately held opinions and personal donations is extremely scary to me -- and I'm in favor of gay rights and gay marriage. You can't correct injustice and intolerance with more injustice and intolerance.

clavalle 13y ago
Free speech doesn't mean no consequences for your speech -- it means the government cannot interfere with your speech (within reason). When you make political speech it is necessarily public not a privately held opinion. He made a political donation showing that he supported a law that curtailed a group of people's natural Right. That donation was used to try and affect public policy. That is not some theory he holds for himself, that is action that directly affects others. Just because people hold opinions doesn't mean you have to tolerate them.
- xaa 13y ago
  Let me put it a different way, since the term "free speech" admittedly has many different connotations. My day job is as a scientist. In science, individual researchers put forth many different ideas, some right, some wrong. Over time, we come to a consensus on which ideas are right and wrong, and the right ideas are kept and the wrong ideas are dropped. However, we don't blackball people who had the wrong ideas: on the contrary, we want to encourage diverse ideas and opinions because it is only through the conflict of these ideas that truth emerges. I don't want to live in a society where people have to fear for their jobs or a public mob action because they espoused an unpopular opinion. I disagree with Eich's opinion today, but tomorrow I could be in the minority. Yes, the wrong ideas can be harmful, but in my opinion if we have an open marketplace of ideas, rather than the "chilling effects" of political correctness (or religion, or any other force that says that there are unspeakable ideas), the truth will eventually out. Case in point: gay marriage itself. A few years ago it was a radical idea, now it's just a matter of time before it becomes legal nationwide in the US. Ironically, the only reason there was enough political force to oust Eich is because his viewpoints are now in the minority.
  - quaunaut 13y ago
    > I don't want to live in a society where people have to fear for their jobs or a public mob action because they espoused an unpopular opinion. I disagree with Eich's opinion today, but tomorrow I could be in the minority. Yes, the wrong ideas can be harmful, but in my opinion if we have an open marketplace of ideas, rather than the "chilling effects" of political correctness (or religion, or any other force that says that there are unspeakable ideas), the truth will eventually out. But there's no difference between the two. Society has come to a consensus: Gay Marriage is okay. It isn't gonna end anybody's world. If you're still arguing the other way- especially to a group who have held this consensus longer than most- of course you probably shouldn't be at the head of the organization. That'd be like denying climate change while being the head of an environmentalist organization that had been started in the 50s.
  - clavalle 13y ago
    >I don't want to live in a society where people have to fear for their jobs or a public mob action because they espoused an unpopular opinion. And I don't want to live in a society where we tacitly accept discrimination because it is labeled as political opinion. There is a huge difference between politics and science. It is a terrible analogy. Scientific hypothesis, by definition, can be tested. If someone is wrong, that can be proven. Even if an entire body of work has been built on a wrong hypothesis, that work can be tossed out or modified in the face of new evidence. It can be painful, sure, but there is a mechanism in place for just such an occurrence. Law and policy are made of pure, sloppy human thought-stuff. Some things might be testable but, in general, that is not the rule. If we allow a body of work to develop under bad ideas they take on a life, an inertia, of their own. We do not have any generally agreed upon or foolproof mechanisms to dismantle such an edifice. In fact, most of the mechanisms are designed to make them as permanent as possible -- to bolster the image of institution and consistency. We do not have the luxury of suspending our judgement in the political realm.
    - xaa 13y ago
      Fundamentally, law/politics are addressing an empirical question: how do we maximize the well-being of the population. I understand that this is a much more fuzzy and difficult question than those addressed by the hard sciences, but it is empirical, and we do see progress. Would anyone seriously argue that our political system, despite all its flaws, is not better now than when we had slavery, only white male landowners voting, regularly massacred Native Americans and invaded neighbors, and had no union rights or worker protection laws? Would any nitpicker say that because we cannot precisely quantify the degree of betterness that it isn't better? Every one of those progressive ideas started out as a niche, minority opinion, and many of them were repressed, not by the government, but by social mores. Liberals who seek to repress the opinions of social conservatives -- who, by the way, have lost the war, long-term -- are being profoundly shortsighted, not to say hypocritical. Finally, I'm not saying that individuals should suspend their judgement. You should feel absolutely safe to speak publicly in favor of gay rights, and, say, donate $1000 to your favorite gay rights organization without the fear of losing your job. But you cross a line when you seek to repress other viewpoints.
gagaga 13y ago
Should we have been tolerant of racist people in the 50s and 60s? Was being in favor of segregation a viewpoint people should have respected?
- xaa 13y ago
  As I said, I disagree with my father-in-law's views, just like I disagree with Eich's views. I have tried to talk my father-in-law out of them. But I certainly don't think employment should be conditional on having the right set of beliefs. That way lies madness -- it's the very reason we forbid employment discrimination based on religion, for example. How can you possibly determine which privately-held beliefs are "too bad" for you to deserve being employed. Also, Mozilla's mission has absolutely nothing to do with gay rights. Arguments based on "freedom" and "openness" are so highly metaphorical as to be meaningless, as those words mean different things to different people. As another example, I think the conservative approach to economics is disastrous and would be ruinous if adopted. But do I therefore think that conservatives shouldn't be hired in jobs totally unrelated to economic policy? Of course not.
  - albedoa 13y ago
    > How can you possibly determine which privately-held beliefs are "too bad" for you to deserve being employed. First, it wasn't his beliefs that lost him his employment — it was his actions. Second, while it's not always as clear, donating money to oppress a group in 2008 is an objectively abhorrent act. You know it when you see it.
    - ralfd 13y ago
      But it passed in 2008. That was democracy. With your line of reasoning it would be right to fire a majority of California.
      - albedoa 13y ago
        Democracies and majorities don't determine what is right. In fact, they have historically produced some nasty policies and held some nasty views, respectively. > With your line of reasoning it would be right to fire a majority of California. Firing someone for political activities is currently illegal in California, if I am reading the law correctly. Though I don't imagine half of Californians would be out a job tomorrow even if they weren't protected by law.
ewoodrich 13y ago
I fail to see how a CEO facing criticism for personal political contributions to be evidence of some sort of "gay liberal agenda". He has every right to donate to Prop 8 or whatever cause he likes. He has every right to vocally advocate his position. He does not have a right to be the public facing chief executive of a private organization. I would see no issue with a pro-gay rights CEO being forced to leave Hobby Lobby or something of that nature. It's not censorship to be unable to represent an organization that is expected to have a certain political/social/cultural alignment.
- xaa 13y ago
  I have a problem with the very idea that a mostly apolitical organization like Mozilla should have a sweeping political/social/cultural alignment. If Eich were opposed to net neutrality, or against open internet standards, etc, those would be damning beliefs for someone in the Mozilla CEO spot. Gay rights, however, have nothing whatsoever to do with Mozilla. (I agree with you that Hobby Lobby would fire a pro-gay-rights CEO, but we probably shouldn't be taking lessons on reasonable behavior from Hobby Lobby.) If Mozilla does represent any kind of broad social alignment, I would hope that it would be one in favor of diversity of opinion and free speech.
  - hkphooey 13y ago
    Bingo. It seems that some Mozilla employees and members of the public deluded themselves into thinking Mozilla was some kind of political charity fighting for social causes, rather than being a technology company.
    - nickonline 13y ago
      No one is deluded into thinking Mozilla is a political charity. They most certainly are a technology company and everyone knows that, so are the companies behind Chrome, Internet Explorer and Safari. As far as I know none of the CEO's behind those companies are openly anti-gay marriage. The public, and the employees of Mozilla have expressed that this is not an appropriate view for the CEO to hold and will move to other offerings if he is left. He used his freedom of speech to speak out with his wallet against gay marriage. Just as the consumers and employees have expressed that they will use the free market to go to competitors if he is not ousted.
jherdman 13y ago
Those demanding Eich step down aren't "silencing [his] freedom of speech", they're noting that Mozilla's culture of inclusivity is not congruent with his viewpoint and, as such, isn't fit to lead the organization in the capacity of a CEO.
zemo 13y ago
the reality is that at the end of the day, Mozilla is a civil rights organization. Although it is ostensibly a technology company, their actual agenda is deeply rooted in civil rights, and Brendan Eich's Proposition 8 donation is antithetical to civil rights.
- hkphooey 13y ago
  Firstly, Mozilla is a technology organization, not a political one. Secondly, is marriage really a civil right? If you say yes, explain why campaigners aren't fighting to allow brother to marry sister, mother to marry son, or polygamous marriages which have a long history in many cultures? I think there are many people who would agree that Eich should not have been forced out for his views and donation, and those who pushed the issue are just as intolerant and bigoted as they claim Eich to be. Tolerance works both ways.
  - zemo 13y ago
    >Secondly, is marriage really a civil right? Yes. >If you say yes, explain why campaigners aren't fighting to allow brother to marry sister, mother to marry son, or polygamous marriages which have a long history in many cultures? I think those rights should exist and I'd be shocked if there aren't organizations fighting for the legalization of polygamy. The incestuous marriages you mentioned are probably not represented because those practices are on the one hand, taboo, and on the other hand, practiced by such a small minority that they're unable to materialize a voice.
    - hkphooey 13y ago
      > such a small minority that they're unable to materialize a voice. Surely the whole point about fighting for civil rights is to help all minorities, not just those who are able to muster a voice... Anyway, I think it would have been more accurate for the gay marriage campaign to not brand themselves as a fight for marriage equality since it clearly excludes certain factions. Small point but I think the details matter.
ScottBurson 13y ago
I think the question you have to ask is, who is responsible for Eich's ouster? To the extent it was primarily Mozilla employees, I don't think there's a problem. If they feel they can't work for this man, for any reason, they have the right to say so. If the Board finds that enough employees object to him, they can and should find someone else. If it was primarily public opinion, I agree that that's unfortunate. I don't know for sure, but my guess is that public opinion, loud as it has been, played only a supporting role. If the employees collectively supported Eich, they could have said so, and I think criticism by the general public would have died down sooner or later.
- bzbarsky 13y ago
  You're not going to find ~1000 people who "collectively", without dissenters, support anything unless you picked those people on the basis of their support for that one thing. The public info I see has several employees not supporting Brendan as CEO, a few more not supporting the bad PR having Brendan as CEO will produce, and some more supporting him being CEO, with the vast majority of employees keeping quiet. Not least because for those of them who are not gay they have no sane way of expressing support without being accused of just agreeing with Brendan's views. What really happened here was a combination of public opinion and the press picking up things and running with them (including the false reports about the reasons for board member resignations), which further fanned public opinion, which further fanned press about the issue. No one was much listening to what employees had to say except as it suited their preconceived stories; note that the mainstream press did not report on the employees who came out publicly in support of Brendan staying as CEO. In the end, as far as I can tell, it wasn't the board asking Brendan to resign; it was him deciding to resign because he felt that the way the press was presenting the story (falsehoods and all) was too damaging to Mozilla as an organization.
  - yuhong 13y ago
    Personally, I am worried not only for Brendan Eich, but all future CEOs that will encounter similar problems. BTW, do you know why the Twitter account got deleted?

by xaa 13y ago

clavalle 13y ago

Free speech doesn't mean no consequences for your speech -- it means the government cannot interfere with your speech (within reason). When you make political speech it is necessarily public not a privately held opinion. He made a political donation showing that he supported a law that curtailed a group of people's natural Right. That donation was used to try and affect public policy. That is not some theory he holds for himself, that is action that directly affects others. Just because people hold opinions doesn't mean you have to tolerate them.

xaa 13y ago
Let me put it a different way, since the term "free speech" admittedly has many different connotations. My day job is as a scientist. In science, individual researchers put forth many different ideas, some right, some wrong. Over time, we come to a consensus on which ideas are right and wrong, and the right ideas are kept and the wrong ideas are dropped. However, we don't blackball people who had the wrong ideas: on the contrary, we want to encourage diverse ideas and opinions because it is only through the conflict of these ideas that truth emerges. I don't want to live in a society where people have to fear for their jobs or a public mob action because they espoused an unpopular opinion. I disagree with Eich's opinion today, but tomorrow I could be in the minority. Yes, the wrong ideas can be harmful, but in my opinion if we have an open marketplace of ideas, rather than the "chilling effects" of political correctness (or religion, or any other force that says that there are unspeakable ideas), the truth will eventually out. Case in point: gay marriage itself. A few years ago it was a radical idea, now it's just a matter of time before it becomes legal nationwide in the US. Ironically, the only reason there was enough political force to oust Eich is because his viewpoints are now in the minority.
- quaunaut 13y ago
  > I don't want to live in a society where people have to fear for their jobs or a public mob action because they espoused an unpopular opinion. I disagree with Eich's opinion today, but tomorrow I could be in the minority. Yes, the wrong ideas can be harmful, but in my opinion if we have an open marketplace of ideas, rather than the "chilling effects" of political correctness (or religion, or any other force that says that there are unspeakable ideas), the truth will eventually out. But there's no difference between the two. Society has come to a consensus: Gay Marriage is okay. It isn't gonna end anybody's world. If you're still arguing the other way- especially to a group who have held this consensus longer than most- of course you probably shouldn't be at the head of the organization. That'd be like denying climate change while being the head of an environmentalist organization that had been started in the 50s.
- clavalle 13y ago
  >I don't want to live in a society where people have to fear for their jobs or a public mob action because they espoused an unpopular opinion. And I don't want to live in a society where we tacitly accept discrimination because it is labeled as political opinion. There is a huge difference between politics and science. It is a terrible analogy. Scientific hypothesis, by definition, can be tested. If someone is wrong, that can be proven. Even if an entire body of work has been built on a wrong hypothesis, that work can be tossed out or modified in the face of new evidence. It can be painful, sure, but there is a mechanism in place for just such an occurrence. Law and policy are made of pure, sloppy human thought-stuff. Some things might be testable but, in general, that is not the rule. If we allow a body of work to develop under bad ideas they take on a life, an inertia, of their own. We do not have any generally agreed upon or foolproof mechanisms to dismantle such an edifice. In fact, most of the mechanisms are designed to make them as permanent as possible -- to bolster the image of institution and consistency. We do not have the luxury of suspending our judgement in the political realm.
  - xaa 13y ago
    Fundamentally, law/politics are addressing an empirical question: how do we maximize the well-being of the population. I understand that this is a much more fuzzy and difficult question than those addressed by the hard sciences, but it is empirical, and we do see progress. Would anyone seriously argue that our political system, despite all its flaws, is not better now than when we had slavery, only white male landowners voting, regularly massacred Native Americans and invaded neighbors, and had no union rights or worker protection laws? Would any nitpicker say that because we cannot precisely quantify the degree of betterness that it isn't better? Every one of those progressive ideas started out as a niche, minority opinion, and many of them were repressed, not by the government, but by social mores. Liberals who seek to repress the opinions of social conservatives -- who, by the way, have lost the war, long-term -- are being profoundly shortsighted, not to say hypocritical. Finally, I'm not saying that individuals should suspend their judgement. You should feel absolutely safe to speak publicly in favor of gay rights, and, say, donate $1000 to your favorite gay rights organization without the fear of losing your job. But you cross a line when you seek to repress other viewpoints.

gagaga 13y ago

Should we have been tolerant of racist people in the 50s and 60s? Was being in favor of segregation a viewpoint people should have respected?

xaa 13y ago
As I said, I disagree with my father-in-law's views, just like I disagree with Eich's views. I have tried to talk my father-in-law out of them. But I certainly don't think employment should be conditional on having the right set of beliefs. That way lies madness -- it's the very reason we forbid employment discrimination based on religion, for example. How can you possibly determine which privately-held beliefs are "too bad" for you to deserve being employed. Also, Mozilla's mission has absolutely nothing to do with gay rights. Arguments based on "freedom" and "openness" are so highly metaphorical as to be meaningless, as those words mean different things to different people. As another example, I think the conservative approach to economics is disastrous and would be ruinous if adopted. But do I therefore think that conservatives shouldn't be hired in jobs totally unrelated to economic policy? Of course not.
- albedoa 13y ago
  > How can you possibly determine which privately-held beliefs are "too bad" for you to deserve being employed. First, it wasn't his beliefs that lost him his employment — it was his actions. Second, while it's not always as clear, donating money to oppress a group in 2008 is an objectively abhorrent act. You know it when you see it.
  - ralfd 13y ago
    But it passed in 2008. That was democracy. With your line of reasoning it would be right to fire a majority of California.
    - albedoa 13y ago
      Democracies and majorities don't determine what is right. In fact, they have historically produced some nasty policies and held some nasty views, respectively. > With your line of reasoning it would be right to fire a majority of California. Firing someone for political activities is currently illegal in California, if I am reading the law correctly. Though I don't imagine half of Californians would be out a job tomorrow even if they weren't protected by law.

ewoodrich 13y ago

I fail to see how a CEO facing criticism for personal political contributions to be evidence of some sort of "gay liberal agenda". He has every right to donate to Prop 8 or whatever cause he likes. He has every right to vocally advocate his position. He does not have a right to be the public facing chief executive of a private organization. I would see no issue with a pro-gay rights CEO being forced to leave Hobby Lobby or something of that nature. It's not censorship to be unable to represent an organization that is expected to have a certain political/social/cultural alignment.

xaa 13y ago
I have a problem with the very idea that a mostly apolitical organization like Mozilla should have a sweeping political/social/cultural alignment. If Eich were opposed to net neutrality, or against open internet standards, etc, those would be damning beliefs for someone in the Mozilla CEO spot. Gay rights, however, have nothing whatsoever to do with Mozilla. (I agree with you that Hobby Lobby would fire a pro-gay-rights CEO, but we probably shouldn't be taking lessons on reasonable behavior from Hobby Lobby.) If Mozilla does represent any kind of broad social alignment, I would hope that it would be one in favor of diversity of opinion and free speech.
- hkphooey 13y ago
  Bingo. It seems that some Mozilla employees and members of the public deluded themselves into thinking Mozilla was some kind of political charity fighting for social causes, rather than being a technology company.
  - nickonline 13y ago
    No one is deluded into thinking Mozilla is a political charity. They most certainly are a technology company and everyone knows that, so are the companies behind Chrome, Internet Explorer and Safari. As far as I know none of the CEO's behind those companies are openly anti-gay marriage. The public, and the employees of Mozilla have expressed that this is not an appropriate view for the CEO to hold and will move to other offerings if he is left. He used his freedom of speech to speak out with his wallet against gay marriage. Just as the consumers and employees have expressed that they will use the free market to go to competitors if he is not ousted.

jherdman 13y ago

Those demanding Eich step down aren't "silencing [his] freedom of speech", they're noting that Mozilla's culture of inclusivity is not congruent with his viewpoint and, as such, isn't fit to lead the organization in the capacity of a CEO.

zemo 13y ago

the reality is that at the end of the day, Mozilla is a civil rights organization. Although it is ostensibly a technology company, their actual agenda is deeply rooted in civil rights, and Brendan Eich's Proposition 8 donation is antithetical to civil rights.

hkphooey 13y ago
Firstly, Mozilla is a technology organization, not a political one. Secondly, is marriage really a civil right? If you say yes, explain why campaigners aren't fighting to allow brother to marry sister, mother to marry son, or polygamous marriages which have a long history in many cultures? I think there are many people who would agree that Eich should not have been forced out for his views and donation, and those who pushed the issue are just as intolerant and bigoted as they claim Eich to be. Tolerance works both ways.
- zemo 13y ago
  >Secondly, is marriage really a civil right? Yes. >If you say yes, explain why campaigners aren't fighting to allow brother to marry sister, mother to marry son, or polygamous marriages which have a long history in many cultures? I think those rights should exist and I'd be shocked if there aren't organizations fighting for the legalization of polygamy. The incestuous marriages you mentioned are probably not represented because those practices are on the one hand, taboo, and on the other hand, practiced by such a small minority that they're unable to materialize a voice.
  - hkphooey 13y ago
    > such a small minority that they're unable to materialize a voice. Surely the whole point about fighting for civil rights is to help all minorities, not just those who are able to muster a voice... Anyway, I think it would have been more accurate for the gay marriage campaign to not brand themselves as a fight for marriage equality since it clearly excludes certain factions. Small point but I think the details matter.

ScottBurson 13y ago

I think the question you have to ask is, who is responsible for Eich's ouster? To the extent it was primarily Mozilla employees, I don't think there's a problem. If they feel they can't work for this man, for any reason, they have the right to say so. If the Board finds that enough employees object to him, they can and should find someone else. If it was primarily public opinion, I agree that that's unfortunate. I don't know for sure, but my guess is that public opinion, loud as it has been, played only a supporting role. If the employees collectively supported Eich, they could have said so, and I think criticism by the general public would have died down sooner or later.

bzbarsky 13y ago
You're not going to find ~1000 people who "collectively", without dissenters, support anything unless you picked those people on the basis of their support for that one thing. The public info I see has several employees not supporting Brendan as CEO, a few more not supporting the bad PR having Brendan as CEO will produce, and some more supporting him being CEO, with the vast majority of employees keeping quiet. Not least because for those of them who are not gay they have no sane way of expressing support without being accused of just agreeing with Brendan's views. What really happened here was a combination of public opinion and the press picking up things and running with them (including the false reports about the reasons for board member resignations), which further fanned public opinion, which further fanned press about the issue. No one was much listening to what employees had to say except as it suited their preconceived stories; note that the mainstream press did not report on the employees who came out publicly in support of Brendan staying as CEO. In the end, as far as I can tell, it wasn't the board asking Brendan to resign; it was him deciding to resign because he felt that the way the press was presenting the story (falsehoods and all) was too damaging to Mozilla as an organization.
- yuhong 13y ago
  Personally, I am worried not only for Brendan Eich, but all future CEOs that will encounter similar problems. BTW, do you know why the Twitter account got deleted?