4 ms·

> I am equally disappointed in Mozillians and in demagogues who didn't see the irony in hounding someone for their private opinion because of "intolerance." H

by swang 13y ago

> I am equally disappointed in Mozillians and in demagogues who didn't see the irony in hounding someone for their private opinion because of "intolerance." His opinion is no longer private. Once you vote with your dollars you have publicly acknowledged your opinion. I don't know if I really support what happened to Eich, but this whole event opens your eyes to the hypocrisy of the tech community. If some person not well known to the loudest voices of the community says something insensitive they will have their lives ruined. Someone like Eich does something similar and all of a sudden it is, "whoa, now, let's not overreact."

beedogs 13y ago
And the people describing his actions to help get gay marriage banned in California as merely "an opinion" that should be respected and treated as "free speech" are just laughably wrong.
- growupkids 13y ago
  Indeed. They passed a law to make it illegal. That's no longer an opinion, that's an action.
- swang 13y ago
  Yes let's clear this up. 1. ~52% of Californians voted for Prop 8. True. But Prop 8 was also confusing to votes as to what "Yes" or "No" meant. Supporters of gay marriage were worried that people would believe Yes meant support of gay marriage and vice-versa. 2. The point about Prop 8 wasn't "marriage." The underlying reason gays wanted to marry is for tax breaks and legal privileges. If you cannot be in a "marriage" you are essentially being taxed more and afforded unequal rights to people who can be in a marriage.
yaur 13y ago
"His opinion is no longer private. Once you vote with your dollars you have publicly acknowledged your opinion." Here is the thing, SCotUS has ruled that the 1st amendment protects anonymous political speech precisely because a lack of anonymity can lead to the "economic or official retaliation" against those with differing political views and has also ruled that money, in the context of politics, is speech. So is there a constitutional imperative to protect the anonymity of political speech when that speech comes in monetary form? I personally believe that we are better off being able to see how our leaders have financed their campaigns, but what we have hear is prima facie evidence that not protecting speech when it is in monetary forms leads to the exact sort retaliation that the Supreme Court used in the justification of McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission. I emphatically don't agree with his views, but the threat to everyone's right to free political speech and the potential threat to transparency of campaign finances are not to be taken lightly.

by swang 13y ago

beedogs 13y ago

And the people describing his actions to help get gay marriage banned in California as merely "an opinion" that should be respected and treated as "free speech" are just laughably wrong.

growupkids 13y ago
Indeed. They passed a law to make it illegal. That's no longer an opinion, that's an action.
swang 13y ago
Yes let's clear this up. 1. ~52% of Californians voted for Prop 8. True. But Prop 8 was also confusing to votes as to what "Yes" or "No" meant. Supporters of gay marriage were worried that people would believe Yes meant support of gay marriage and vice-versa. 2. The point about Prop 8 wasn't "marriage." The underlying reason gays wanted to marry is for tax breaks and legal privileges. If you cannot be in a "marriage" you are essentially being taxed more and afforded unequal rights to people who can be in a marriage.

yaur 13y ago

"His opinion is no longer private. Once you vote with your dollars you have publicly acknowledged your opinion." Here is the thing, SCotUS has ruled that the 1st amendment protects anonymous political speech precisely because a lack of anonymity can lead to the "economic or official retaliation" against those with differing political views and has also ruled that money, in the context of politics, is speech. So is there a constitutional imperative to protect the anonymity of political speech when that speech comes in monetary form? I personally believe that we are better off being able to see how our leaders have financed their campaigns, but what we have hear is prima facie evidence that not protecting speech when it is in monetary forms leads to the exact sort retaliation that the Supreme Court used in the justification of McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission. I emphatically don't agree with his views, but the threat to everyone's right to free political speech and the potential threat to transparency of campaign finances are not to be taken lightly.