9 ms·

Torn and weary (on Brendan Eich and Mozilla)

37 points by kilian 13y ago

codeoclock 13y ago
He had the right to free speech. He exercised his right to free speech. He had to deal with the consequences. There is no right to free speech without consequences. Each and every person who has the right to free speech (because remember, many don't) can say whatever they like, but cannot possibly expect it to never affect them further down the road. Particularly when you're in the position of CEO where you're expected to represent the company's ideals in your every public action.
- speeder 13y ago
  Or basically: You have free speech, but shut up, who knows if something you said in the past will ruin your career in the future. (does not even matter if you still believe in what you said in the past or not... I did not saw anyone asking Eich)
  - codeoclock 13y ago
    No no no, not "shut up" at all. That's not what I said. But, bear in mind that everything you say can affect your future. Which is totally fair enough. Judging a persons character by what they have said and done in the past is standard, and fair, practice. Expecting immunity from everything you've ever said or done is unrealistic. If Eich no longer believes what he believed, it's on him to make sure he makes that point. However, Eich never said anything to that effect, nor did he apologize, so we have no reason to assume that his opinion has changed.
    - karterk 13y ago
      Judging a persons character by what they have said and done in the past is standard, and fair, practice. You judge a CEO by the actions/decisions made in professional context. You don't use a personal decision to extrapolate what-if scenarios.
    - betterunix 13y ago
      "If Eich no longer believes what he believed," So the issue is not speech but rather thought. George Orwell had a term for punishing people for their thoughts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoughtcrime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoughtcrime
      - rdc12 13y ago
        And he acted on his thought about marriage equality, so it was not a piece of thoughtcrime
      - skj 13y ago
        No, the action of donating money to helping the suppression.
    - rnnr 13y ago
      I don't think Eich would deny job to someone just because (s)he was gay. He didn't tried or even thought to split any gay couple apart. He just couldn't accept a definition of marriage which includes same sex couples. But those are subtle details for the liberal fascists.
      - joshstrange 13y ago
        > He just couldn't accept a definition of marriage which includes same sex couples. Then he took it a step further and donated to group that was working to destroy human rights for homosexuals. > He didn't tried or even thought to split any gay couple apart. You're right, he didn't try to split a gay couple apart, he just sought to dissolve their marriage...
    - nailer 13y ago
      So, as Pacabel just asked, would you support someone being forced to leave their job because they supported gay marriage?
      - joshstrange 13y ago
        This is a ridiculous question, of course not. Please don't try to act like pro/anti gay marriage are equally ethical positions, they aren't.
        Amezarak 13y ago
        You see same-sex marriage as a human right. (You would surely agree that same-sex marriage was a right even were it not a legal one.) To those of us who believe in human rights, which undoubtedly includes Eich, that would make anyone who took action to deny anyone that right unethical. The problem is Eich doesn't see it as a human right. Indeed, to him, it may be the case he sees same-sex marriage as unethical. (We don't know what his objections are.) At any rate, he has no reason to find the support of gay marriage ethical or the opposition of it unethical. There is no objective morality that tells us who is right or wrong here. There's no divine tablets we can all interpret listing out all our rights. You can't stop at "same-sex marriage is a human right" and "opposing gay marriage is (ergo) unethical." That just leaves you talking right past people like Eich. It doesn't advance the argument or the cause - it just labels people as stupid or bad.
      - ghfdaghkj 13y ago
        Sure, it's a free country. If someone doesn't want to exchange dollars for work hours anymore, for any reason, that should be totally fine. I'd also stop giving that company money.
  - joshstrange 13y ago
    > (does not even matter if you still believe in what you said in the past or not... I did not saw anyone asking Eich) Full stop. He had ample opportunity to speak out but he didn't. When someone says "I believe X" I assume that that person believes X until they either say "I don't believe X" or "I believe in Y" where Y is the opposite/different viewpoint on the same issue. Eich has made no such statement therefore I can only assume he is still anti-marriage equality, a homophobe, and not the right choice as the CEO of Mozilla. Yes, you have free speech but just as codeoclock (and countless other HN'ers) said, you have to deal with the consequences. What you are proposing is a world where we can say whatever we want but never be held to what we say. I, for one, do not want to live in a world like that. I have said things in the past that I later changed my stance on and I have made every effort to make my change of view just as public as the original statement was. Sometimes this means talking to an individual or a small group and sometimes it means posting it to twitter. I believe that if Eich had come out and said that his previous stance on marriage equality was wrong and he has since changed his view that this would not have ended the same way. Instead in both his blog posts [0][1] after this whole thing broke he drones on about how he will treat everyone fairly and how his personal beliefs will not affect his performance as CEO but he cleverly dances around the fact that he feels that homosexuals do not deserve the same rights as heterosexuals. [0] https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/ https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/ [1] https://brendaneich.com/2014/04/the-next-mission/ https://brendaneich.com/2014/04/the-next-mission/
    - betterunix 13y ago
      "he cleverly dances around the fact that he feels that homosexuals do not deserve the same rights as heterosexuals." Yes, and obviously that is completely orthogonal to the kind of treatment he has received over his beliefs about gay marriage. It is easy to criticize people who are afraid to speak their minds when you have an army of thought police standing with you ready to punish anyone who dares to disagree.
      - joshstrange 13y ago
        I for one am extremely happy that we have an "army" of people ready to defend an oppressed group of people. Also this is not the "though police" he donated to a group working to destroy human rights for homosexuals. If we were talking about a CEO that was racist and had donated to the KKK would you still rush to call foul when they were forced to step down by popular opinion?
- PavlovsCat 13y ago
  > the position of CEO where you're expected to represent the company's ideals in your every public action. I find that over the top. Also, everybody has to deal with the consequences. The open web is not a toy to be taken for granted. I dare say many of the recent successes of LGBT were in part enabled by something like an open web existing. The practical effects of leaving someone who in the past donated money to an agenda which lost: zero. Sure, if you think about it and get angry about it, it has an effect on you -- that's why it's called taking offense I guess -- and in turn the "revenge" can feel good. The practical effects of Eich leaving Mozilla: incalculable, assuming he would have done great things.. on the other hand, the practical effects of, say, OKCupid disappearing from the face of the Earth: zero, dating sites are a dime a dozen. BTW, since HN doesn't seem to like this topic, the discussion on slashdot is quite good: http://tech.slashdot.org/story/14/04/03/1924250/brendan-eich-steps-down-as-mozilla-ceo http://tech.slashdot.org/story/14/04/03/1924250/brendan-eich...
- Pacabel 13y ago
  From what I can tell, you're suggesting that it's perfectly acceptable for somebody to lose his or her job merely for expressing a stance against gay marriage. Does that mean that it's also perfectly acceptable for somebody to lose his or her job merely for expressing a stance in favor of gay marriage?
  - tomelders 13y ago
    This is madness. Is it ok for someone to lose their job for being racist? Is it ok for someone to lose their job for not being racist? Is it ok for someone to lose their job for being sexist? Is it ok for someone to lose their job for not being sexist? Is it ok for someone to lose their job for being homophobic? Yes. Is it ok for someone to lose their job for not being homophobic? No. Do people lose their jobs for being LGB or T? Yes. Do people lose their jobs for supporting LGBT rights. Yes. If you think some people have less rights than other people just because of the way they were born, then you're a bad person. He wasn't born a homophobe, he became one, and it's just and right to make assessments of people for the things they chose to do.
    - nailer 13y ago
      You assume not supporting gay marriage makes someone a homophobe. Fine, but others would disagree.
      - tomelders 13y ago
        It does. You do not get to chose the parameters of what makes a homophobe. The people who suffer at the whim of homophobes make that distinction. Opposition to same sex marriage is 100% homophobic. Same sex marriage doesn't hurt anyone. It's prejudice, plain and simple.
        yummyfajitas 13y ago
        You do not get to chose the parameters of what makes a homophobe. The people who suffer at the whim of homophobes make that distinction. Your logic is flawed. Group A defines group B, and group B defines group A. As a result, there is no way to define membership in group A or B. Opposition to same sex marriage is 100% homophobic. Same sex marriage doesn't hurt anyone. It's prejudice, plain and simple. Does this apply to all acts that don't hurt anyone, yet are not subsidized/supported by the government? Paying below minimum wage? Failing to buy health insurance? Cutting hair without a license? Failing to purchase a home? Somehow I don't think you actually believe your own argument.
brianchu 13y ago
Just so people are clear here, America has never had a right to free speech in the sense that a lot of people seem to be thinking. America has only ever had a legal right to free speech (and even then with many exceptions [1]); only government is bound by this. People tend to forget that the Constitution (and First Amendment) only applies to government. I haven't made up my mind whether Mozilla should have fired Brendan. [1] One of those is hate crimes against certain classes of people.
- betterunix 13y ago
  That does not mean it is acceptable for people to band together and bully anyone who disagrees with them. All it means is that the legal system is not going to help us, and that we have to take it upon ourselves to remind people not to behave in this manner.
  - davidw 13y ago
    Something I've been wondering about this confusing issue is: do people think it's never ok to ostracize someone for their views? Say he donated money to the KKK, or ... you make up some really heinous, hideous belief ...? Still ok? And going the other way, to something a bit broader/more mainstream, say he donated to the Republican Party. Ok to ostracize him? To me it seems like people have some kind of dividing line that's not cut and dried, possibly depending on their own beliefs.
    - crankyc0der 13y ago
      American? Contribute to one of the world powers via taxes? Throw stones much?
      - davidw 13y ago
        You don't seem to be responding to the central point of my question really, which is an open one. I didn't comment to tell everyone the Right Answer, I was musing about how people work. I see you are fairly new here: something that sets HN apart from other corners of the internet is that generally, we try and be tolerant, and give other people the benefit of the doubt. Snarky one liners are not always looked on very positively. Naturally, there are heated discussions and these ideals don't always hold true, but one of the guiding principles here is to pretend you are talking to someone in person and think about how that would guide your interaction with them.
CrLf 13y ago
This whole story is disgusting. I'm still waiting to understand exactly where does a personal opinion on gay rights interfere with the ability to manage a company that basically develops a web browser. Just another witch hunt.
- ghfdaghkj 13y ago
  I wouldn't work for Mozilla if he was the CEO. I doubt they care about that specifically, but a lot of other developers probably feel the same. Good luck hiring any gay people. Employees were in revolt, one went on strike, etc.
  - tzs 13y ago
    > good luck hiring any gay people His donation has been well known for years, and Mozilla has had no apparent problem hiring or keeping gay developers even through he held an executive position and had massive influence there. Given that, and the fact that there have been gay Mozilla employees who supported his appointment to CEO, it seems unlikely that Mozilla would no longer be able to attract gay people.
- tonymillion 13y ago
  It matters because with the knowledge we have now, we'll never know if "Person X" was passed over for promotion because they were "a little bit gay" or they just weren't suited to the job. With that permanently at the back of our minds, how can we ever trust his actions towards others are "fair and unbiased"? The only way to ensure any equality in this situation would be to have a committee review his every action, which undermines his role as CEO. This is a classic case of your prior actions coming to bite you in the ass later in life. Which is why you probably shouldn't post photos of you smoking pot, videos of you speeding in your moms car - or anything else thats reckless we do in our youth.
  - joshstrange 13y ago
    I agree with most everything you said but I don't believe past actions lock you into a future course. He could have come out and said his views on marriage equality had changed but he didn't and so we have to assume they haven't. Had he said his past donation was a mistake and his opinion on the matter had now changed I doubt we would have seen the same backlash.
tomelders 13y ago
What world is this? When did everyone lose their minds and decide it was ok for some people to be Homophobes, but not for others? Can I be a racist if I'm a CEO? Am I free from criticism for my horrible beliefs just because I run an organisation that people like? Does donating $1000 to a movement that campaigns to take rights away form black people have any reflection on me? Can I be trusted to not let my world view have any effect on my work? Can a cop be a homophobe, or a racist, and still be trusted to do their job without letting their world view interfere with the application of the law? I'm genuinely sickened by the people here on HN clamouring to pardon Eich and blame those with a strong moral compass for the downfall he inflicted on himself.
- crankyc0der 13y ago
  Wah? Fascism much?
- zimbatm 13y ago
  These are strong feelings. Don't you think that everyone is entitled to their own opinions ? In any case you can't force somebody to think differently, otherwise it's bullying. I'm pro LGBT and I think this is a loss for the cause. I'm pro LGBT because I don't think that people should get persecuted for being different. I want to promote peace, tolerance and compassion. Bullying someone into stepping down from his role is contrary to that belief. Do you really think that Eich staying in his post would have made a difference to the LGBT cause ?
  - MetaCosm 13y ago
    Would you be fine if Eich had donated $1000 to an group trying to stop inter-racial marriage? Inter-racial marriage issues are not some far past thing, "In October 2009, Keith Bardwell, a Louisiana justice of the peace, refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple..." In your mind, is being against interracial marriage just an opinion people shouldn't be held to account for... or like me, would you say "of course fire the racist asshole".
    - coolj 13y ago
zimbatm 13y ago
Internet mobs is a horrible phenomenon. Internet was supposed to enable sharing of culture and better the understanding of each other. Instead we get these groups of people who spit bile at a target and just make things worse overall. How ironic that one of the people who helped create this system now gets pushed aside. The thing is that it works. I read some hate-inducing title and start to get worked up. My judgement is clouded and I might post some more inflammatory content. What is it that makes me react that way ? Every time I do it I don't even feel good after that. This primal instinct has come up and I feel stupid, angry and ashamed. Where did the noble sentiments like compassion and tolerance go ? I wish there was an antidote, peace-inducing titles to balance this out.
- sehr 13y ago
  My judgement is clouded and I might post some more inflammatory content. What is it that makes me react that way ? Every time I do it I don't even feel good after that. Has anyone experimented with meditation/mindfulness here? I imagine constantly being aware of your reactions and moods would help in situations like this. And in regards to that, are there any studies on mob mentality in western vs eastern cultures? Or am I just barking down a pseudoscience rabbit hole
- dalke 13y ago
  Do you support that people can boycott and picket? If so, what makes this "internet mob" different from an "internet boycott and picket? If not, why do think real-world rights of speech and association don't translate to the internet?
  - zimbatm 13y ago
    My observation is that it's hard to talk freely in that kind of environment. Anything that you say is scrutinized and analyzed and becomes "proof" that you're in one camp or another. Internet seem to make the issue worse because you only have textual cues and everything is recorded for a long time. It's also easy to forget that on the other side you have a real person reading your message. My issue is not that people protest. Society at large evolves and mentality change because some courageous people elevated their voices and raised opinions that at the time weren't popular. When people promote gay rights I believe the inherent goal is acceptance and better understanding of each-other. I don't see that happening here. I don't see people reaching for each other, in fact each camp gets entrenched because of all the hate. Discussions become irrational. I understand why but it makes me sad.
ghfdaghkj 13y ago
> The last few days were horrible. Not like my house burned down and I lost a limb horrible or people put me in prison and violating me horrible, but a lot of pressure, a barrage of anger and a feeling of helplessness. Also a feeling of betrayal and a feeling of being powerless. Seriously? A rich old white guy has a lot of newfound free time. Who cares? Life must be so rough for Brendan Eich right now. Wow, maybe he feels like a transgender person does every day!
thropoa123 13y ago
Why on earth is anyone defending Brenden? I am gay in a third world country and if I come out, at best I will be socially ostracized, get fired and lose my whole family or at worst, suffer life imprisonment. He actively supported a legislation which treats gays as subhumans. His justification is absolutely abhorring. Does Brenden know how many homosexual men and women live constantly in fear for their lives? Does he know how much pain people like me suffer through everyday in their life? What is wrong with people? We should respect his political opinion? Bull-fucking-shit. His political opinion just adds suffering to already shitty lives. The first thing I ever did after getting a credit card was donate to Mozilla. That's how much I like that organization. I can never digest the fact that he became a CEO. I waited to see if he had changed his opinion. All I wanted to hear from his mouth was, "I am sorry that I have hurt many LGBT people by donating to prop 8. I made a mistake." He never said that. Deep down he still considers us as subhumans. I am very sure that he would be a great CEO. But If he were the CEO, Mozilla as an organization has let me down. Sorry for bad English
boomlinde 13y ago
I don't see how this is a free speech issue. If anything, it escalated to this point because the people who called for his resignation were exercising their right to free speech.

37 points by kilian 13y ago

He had the right to free speech. He exercised his right to free speech. He had to deal with the consequences. There is no right to free speech without consequences. Each and every person who has the right to free speech (because remember, many don't) can say whatever they like, but cannot possibly expect it to never affect them further down the road. Particularly when you're in the position of CEO where you're expected to represent the company's ideals in your every public action.

speeder 13y ago
Or basically: You have free speech, but shut up, who knows if something you said in the past will ruin your career in the future. (does not even matter if you still believe in what you said in the past or not... I did not saw anyone asking Eich)
- codeoclock 13y ago
  No no no, not "shut up" at all. That's not what I said. But, bear in mind that everything you say can affect your future. Which is totally fair enough. Judging a persons character by what they have said and done in the past is standard, and fair, practice. Expecting immunity from everything you've ever said or done is unrealistic. If Eich no longer believes what he believed, it's on him to make sure he makes that point. However, Eich never said anything to that effect, nor did he apologize, so we have no reason to assume that his opinion has changed.
  - karterk 13y ago
    Judging a persons character by what they have said and done in the past is standard, and fair, practice. You judge a CEO by the actions/decisions made in professional context. You don't use a personal decision to extrapolate what-if scenarios.
  - betterunix 13y ago
    "If Eich no longer believes what he believed," So the issue is not speech but rather thought. George Orwell had a term for punishing people for their thoughts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoughtcrime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoughtcrime
    - rdc12 13y ago
      And he acted on his thought about marriage equality, so it was not a piece of thoughtcrime
    - skj 13y ago
      No, the action of donating money to helping the suppression.
  - rnnr 13y ago
    I don't think Eich would deny job to someone just because (s)he was gay. He didn't tried or even thought to split any gay couple apart. He just couldn't accept a definition of marriage which includes same sex couples. But those are subtle details for the liberal fascists.
    - joshstrange 13y ago
      > He just couldn't accept a definition of marriage which includes same sex couples. Then he took it a step further and donated to group that was working to destroy human rights for homosexuals. > He didn't tried or even thought to split any gay couple apart. You're right, he didn't try to split a gay couple apart, he just sought to dissolve their marriage...
  - nailer 13y ago
    So, as Pacabel just asked, would you support someone being forced to leave their job because they supported gay marriage?
    - joshstrange 13y ago
      This is a ridiculous question, of course not. Please don't try to act like pro/anti gay marriage are equally ethical positions, they aren't.
      - Amezarak 13y ago
        You see same-sex marriage as a human right. (You would surely agree that same-sex marriage was a right even were it not a legal one.) To those of us who believe in human rights, which undoubtedly includes Eich, that would make anyone who took action to deny anyone that right unethical. The problem is Eich doesn't see it as a human right. Indeed, to him, it may be the case he sees same-sex marriage as unethical. (We don't know what his objections are.) At any rate, he has no reason to find the support of gay marriage ethical or the opposition of it unethical. There is no objective morality that tells us who is right or wrong here. There's no divine tablets we can all interpret listing out all our rights. You can't stop at "same-sex marriage is a human right" and "opposing gay marriage is (ergo) unethical." That just leaves you talking right past people like Eich. It doesn't advance the argument or the cause - it just labels people as stupid or bad.
    - ghfdaghkj 13y ago
      Sure, it's a free country. If someone doesn't want to exchange dollars for work hours anymore, for any reason, that should be totally fine. I'd also stop giving that company money.
- joshstrange 13y ago
  > (does not even matter if you still believe in what you said in the past or not... I did not saw anyone asking Eich) Full stop. He had ample opportunity to speak out but he didn't. When someone says "I believe X" I assume that that person believes X until they either say "I don't believe X" or "I believe in Y" where Y is the opposite/different viewpoint on the same issue. Eich has made no such statement therefore I can only assume he is still anti-marriage equality, a homophobe, and not the right choice as the CEO of Mozilla. Yes, you have free speech but just as codeoclock (and countless other HN'ers) said, you have to deal with the consequences. What you are proposing is a world where we can say whatever we want but never be held to what we say. I, for one, do not want to live in a world like that. I have said things in the past that I later changed my stance on and I have made every effort to make my change of view just as public as the original statement was. Sometimes this means talking to an individual or a small group and sometimes it means posting it to twitter. I believe that if Eich had come out and said that his previous stance on marriage equality was wrong and he has since changed his view that this would not have ended the same way. Instead in both his blog posts [0][1] after this whole thing broke he drones on about how he will treat everyone fairly and how his personal beliefs will not affect his performance as CEO but he cleverly dances around the fact that he feels that homosexuals do not deserve the same rights as heterosexuals. [0] https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/ https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/ [1] https://brendaneich.com/2014/04/the-next-mission/ https://brendaneich.com/2014/04/the-next-mission/
  - betterunix 13y ago
    "he cleverly dances around the fact that he feels that homosexuals do not deserve the same rights as heterosexuals." Yes, and obviously that is completely orthogonal to the kind of treatment he has received over his beliefs about gay marriage. It is easy to criticize people who are afraid to speak their minds when you have an army of thought police standing with you ready to punish anyone who dares to disagree.
    - joshstrange 13y ago
      I for one am extremely happy that we have an "army" of people ready to defend an oppressed group of people. Also this is not the "though police" he donated to a group working to destroy human rights for homosexuals. If we were talking about a CEO that was racist and had donated to the KKK would you still rush to call foul when they were forced to step down by popular opinion?
PavlovsCat 13y ago
> the position of CEO where you're expected to represent the company's ideals in your every public action. I find that over the top. Also, everybody has to deal with the consequences. The open web is not a toy to be taken for granted. I dare say many of the recent successes of LGBT were in part enabled by something like an open web existing. The practical effects of leaving someone who in the past donated money to an agenda which lost: zero. Sure, if you think about it and get angry about it, it has an effect on you -- that's why it's called taking offense I guess -- and in turn the "revenge" can feel good. The practical effects of Eich leaving Mozilla: incalculable, assuming he would have done great things.. on the other hand, the practical effects of, say, OKCupid disappearing from the face of the Earth: zero, dating sites are a dime a dozen. BTW, since HN doesn't seem to like this topic, the discussion on slashdot is quite good: http://tech.slashdot.org/story/14/04/03/1924250/brendan-eich-steps-down-as-mozilla-ceo http://tech.slashdot.org/story/14/04/03/1924250/brendan-eich...
Pacabel 13y ago
From what I can tell, you're suggesting that it's perfectly acceptable for somebody to lose his or her job merely for expressing a stance against gay marriage. Does that mean that it's also perfectly acceptable for somebody to lose his or her job merely for expressing a stance in favor of gay marriage?
- tomelders 13y ago
  This is madness. Is it ok for someone to lose their job for being racist? Is it ok for someone to lose their job for not being racist? Is it ok for someone to lose their job for being sexist? Is it ok for someone to lose their job for not being sexist? Is it ok for someone to lose their job for being homophobic? Yes. Is it ok for someone to lose their job for not being homophobic? No. Do people lose their jobs for being LGB or T? Yes. Do people lose their jobs for supporting LGBT rights. Yes. If you think some people have less rights than other people just because of the way they were born, then you're a bad person. He wasn't born a homophobe, he became one, and it's just and right to make assessments of people for the things they chose to do.
  - nailer 13y ago
    You assume not supporting gay marriage makes someone a homophobe. Fine, but others would disagree.
    - tomelders 13y ago
      It does. You do not get to chose the parameters of what makes a homophobe. The people who suffer at the whim of homophobes make that distinction. Opposition to same sex marriage is 100% homophobic. Same sex marriage doesn't hurt anyone. It's prejudice, plain and simple.
      - yummyfajitas 13y ago
        You do not get to chose the parameters of what makes a homophobe. The people who suffer at the whim of homophobes make that distinction. Your logic is flawed. Group A defines group B, and group B defines group A. As a result, there is no way to define membership in group A or B. Opposition to same sex marriage is 100% homophobic. Same sex marriage doesn't hurt anyone. It's prejudice, plain and simple. Does this apply to all acts that don't hurt anyone, yet are not subsidized/supported by the government? Paying below minimum wage? Failing to buy health insurance? Cutting hair without a license? Failing to purchase a home? Somehow I don't think you actually believe your own argument.

brianchu 13y ago

Just so people are clear here, America has never had a right to free speech in the sense that a lot of people seem to be thinking. America has only ever had a legal right to free speech (and even then with many exceptions [1]); only government is bound by this. People tend to forget that the Constitution (and First Amendment) only applies to government. I haven't made up my mind whether Mozilla should have fired Brendan. [1] One of those is hate crimes against certain classes of people.

betterunix 13y ago
That does not mean it is acceptable for people to band together and bully anyone who disagrees with them. All it means is that the legal system is not going to help us, and that we have to take it upon ourselves to remind people not to behave in this manner.
- davidw 13y ago
  Something I've been wondering about this confusing issue is: do people think it's never ok to ostracize someone for their views? Say he donated money to the KKK, or ... you make up some really heinous, hideous belief ...? Still ok? And going the other way, to something a bit broader/more mainstream, say he donated to the Republican Party. Ok to ostracize him? To me it seems like people have some kind of dividing line that's not cut and dried, possibly depending on their own beliefs.
  - crankyc0der 13y ago
    American? Contribute to one of the world powers via taxes? Throw stones much?
    - davidw 13y ago
      You don't seem to be responding to the central point of my question really, which is an open one. I didn't comment to tell everyone the Right Answer, I was musing about how people work. I see you are fairly new here: something that sets HN apart from other corners of the internet is that generally, we try and be tolerant, and give other people the benefit of the doubt. Snarky one liners are not always looked on very positively. Naturally, there are heated discussions and these ideals don't always hold true, but one of the guiding principles here is to pretend you are talking to someone in person and think about how that would guide your interaction with them.

CrLf 13y ago

This whole story is disgusting. I'm still waiting to understand exactly where does a personal opinion on gay rights interfere with the ability to manage a company that basically develops a web browser. Just another witch hunt.

ghfdaghkj 13y ago
I wouldn't work for Mozilla if he was the CEO. I doubt they care about that specifically, but a lot of other developers probably feel the same. Good luck hiring any gay people. Employees were in revolt, one went on strike, etc.
- tzs 13y ago
  > good luck hiring any gay people His donation has been well known for years, and Mozilla has had no apparent problem hiring or keeping gay developers even through he held an executive position and had massive influence there. Given that, and the fact that there have been gay Mozilla employees who supported his appointment to CEO, it seems unlikely that Mozilla would no longer be able to attract gay people.
tonymillion 13y ago
It matters because with the knowledge we have now, we'll never know if "Person X" was passed over for promotion because they were "a little bit gay" or they just weren't suited to the job. With that permanently at the back of our minds, how can we ever trust his actions towards others are "fair and unbiased"? The only way to ensure any equality in this situation would be to have a committee review his every action, which undermines his role as CEO. This is a classic case of your prior actions coming to bite you in the ass later in life. Which is why you probably shouldn't post photos of you smoking pot, videos of you speeding in your moms car - or anything else thats reckless we do in our youth.
- joshstrange 13y ago
  I agree with most everything you said but I don't believe past actions lock you into a future course. He could have come out and said his views on marriage equality had changed but he didn't and so we have to assume they haven't. Had he said his past donation was a mistake and his opinion on the matter had now changed I doubt we would have seen the same backlash.

tomelders 13y ago

What world is this? When did everyone lose their minds and decide it was ok for some people to be Homophobes, but not for others? Can I be a racist if I'm a CEO? Am I free from criticism for my horrible beliefs just because I run an organisation that people like? Does donating $1000 to a movement that campaigns to take rights away form black people have any reflection on me? Can I be trusted to not let my world view have any effect on my work? Can a cop be a homophobe, or a racist, and still be trusted to do their job without letting their world view interfere with the application of the law? I'm genuinely sickened by the people here on HN clamouring to pardon Eich and blame those with a strong moral compass for the downfall he inflicted on himself.

crankyc0der 13y ago
Wah? Fascism much?
zimbatm 13y ago
These are strong feelings. Don't you think that everyone is entitled to their own opinions ? In any case you can't force somebody to think differently, otherwise it's bullying. I'm pro LGBT and I think this is a loss for the cause. I'm pro LGBT because I don't think that people should get persecuted for being different. I want to promote peace, tolerance and compassion. Bullying someone into stepping down from his role is contrary to that belief. Do you really think that Eich staying in his post would have made a difference to the LGBT cause ?
- MetaCosm 13y ago
  Would you be fine if Eich had donated $1000 to an group trying to stop inter-racial marriage? Inter-racial marriage issues are not some far past thing, "In October 2009, Keith Bardwell, a Louisiana justice of the peace, refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple..." In your mind, is being against interracial marriage just an opinion people shouldn't be held to account for... or like me, would you say "of course fire the racist asshole".
  - coolj 13y ago

zimbatm 13y ago

Internet mobs is a horrible phenomenon. Internet was supposed to enable sharing of culture and better the understanding of each other. Instead we get these groups of people who spit bile at a target and just make things worse overall. How ironic that one of the people who helped create this system now gets pushed aside. The thing is that it works. I read some hate-inducing title and start to get worked up. My judgement is clouded and I might post some more inflammatory content. What is it that makes me react that way ? Every time I do it I don't even feel good after that. This primal instinct has come up and I feel stupid, angry and ashamed. Where did the noble sentiments like compassion and tolerance go ? I wish there was an antidote, peace-inducing titles to balance this out.

sehr 13y ago
My judgement is clouded and I might post some more inflammatory content. What is it that makes me react that way ? Every time I do it I don't even feel good after that. Has anyone experimented with meditation/mindfulness here? I imagine constantly being aware of your reactions and moods would help in situations like this. And in regards to that, are there any studies on mob mentality in western vs eastern cultures? Or am I just barking down a pseudoscience rabbit hole
dalke 13y ago
Do you support that people can boycott and picket? If so, what makes this "internet mob" different from an "internet boycott and picket? If not, why do think real-world rights of speech and association don't translate to the internet?
- zimbatm 13y ago
  My observation is that it's hard to talk freely in that kind of environment. Anything that you say is scrutinized and analyzed and becomes "proof" that you're in one camp or another. Internet seem to make the issue worse because you only have textual cues and everything is recorded for a long time. It's also easy to forget that on the other side you have a real person reading your message. My issue is not that people protest. Society at large evolves and mentality change because some courageous people elevated their voices and raised opinions that at the time weren't popular. When people promote gay rights I believe the inherent goal is acceptance and better understanding of each-other. I don't see that happening here. I don't see people reaching for each other, in fact each camp gets entrenched because of all the hate. Discussions become irrational. I understand why but it makes me sad.

ghfdaghkj 13y ago

> The last few days were horrible. Not like my house burned down and I lost a limb horrible or people put me in prison and violating me horrible, but a lot of pressure, a barrage of anger and a feeling of helplessness. Also a feeling of betrayal and a feeling of being powerless. Seriously? A rich old white guy has a lot of newfound free time. Who cares? Life must be so rough for Brendan Eich right now. Wow, maybe he feels like a transgender person does every day!

thropoa123 13y ago

Why on earth is anyone defending Brenden? I am gay in a third world country and if I come out, at best I will be socially ostracized, get fired and lose my whole family or at worst, suffer life imprisonment. He actively supported a legislation which treats gays as subhumans. His justification is absolutely abhorring. Does Brenden know how many homosexual men and women live constantly in fear for their lives? Does he know how much pain people like me suffer through everyday in their life? What is wrong with people? We should respect his political opinion? Bull-fucking-shit. His political opinion just adds suffering to already shitty lives. The first thing I ever did after getting a credit card was donate to Mozilla. That's how much I like that organization. I can never digest the fact that he became a CEO. I waited to see if he had changed his opinion. All I wanted to hear from his mouth was, "I am sorry that I have hurt many LGBT people by donating to prop 8. I made a mistake." He never said that. Deep down he still considers us as subhumans. I am very sure that he would be a great CEO. But If he were the CEO, Mozilla as an organization has let me down. Sorry for bad English

boomlinde 13y ago

I don't see how this is a free speech issue. If anything, it escalated to this point because the people who called for his resignation were exercising their right to free speech.