5 ms·

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 l

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.
- wcummings 13y ago
  Racism and sexism are often considered firable offenses. For many, this feels no different. The fact that its tied to a "religious belief" or is still something that can be voted on makes it no less bigoted. His poor response didn't help: "if you disagree with me you're oppressing the poor Indonesians who don't have a mouthpiece!". What an asshole. The fact is, donating to support prop 8 is bigotry in and of itself. Many have said no one experienced overt discrimination, but all that really means is that he wasn't bigoted to the victims' faces, he quietly donated to a cause with the intent of stripping people he calls his friends of their rights. He apologized for hurting his LGBT friends, but stops short of actually apologizing and then justifies his beliefs with those of a 3rd world country. Free speech has nothing to do with this, this is someone whose actions many people, both inside and outside of the organization, found incompatible with what they saw as Mozilla's values, and who can blame them? Tl;dr opposing gay marriage is widely seen as a despicable and regressive cause that many people do not want to associate with
  - betterunix 13y ago
    "Free speech has nothing to do with this, this is someone whose actions many people found incompatible with what they saw as Mozilla's values, both inside and outside of the organization, and who can blame them?" I can blame them. Mozilla makes a web browser. Gay marriage has nothing to do with Mozilla's mission or with the political issues Mozilla has to deal with as part of its mission. I could understand the uproar if Eich had donated to a "ban free software" cause, but that is not what happened. You're right, this is not about free speech. Eich was not punished for what he said, he was punished for what he thought. The donation is irrelevant here, other than the fact that it revealed Eich's beliefs. There would be just as much anger and vitriol if instead of a donation someone revealed that Eich had voted in favor of proposition 8.
    - wcummings 13y ago
      Chick-fil-A also has nothing to do with Gay Marriage [1]. It's not like this is some totally unique event, in the real world these issues are more than a proposition on a ballot and they effect the way people do business, whether you like it or not. As an executive at Mozilla, Eich forced the organization to take a stance on the issue by donating. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_same-sex_marriage_controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_same-sex_marriage_c...
nailer 13y ago
Agreed re: free speech law, but forcing someone to resign for their religious beliefs still seems somewhat dubious.
- olavk 13y ago
  He was not forced to resign over a religious belief. He was forced to resign because he supported a political campaign for a legislation which had real tangible effects for many peoples lives.
  - nailer 13y ago
    He supported that campaign based upon his religious beliefs.
    - olavk 13y ago
      OK I don't know anything about why he supported the campaign, and AFAIK he haven't spoken publicly about it at all. But even if it was because of religious beliefs, he is not being forced to resign because of his personal religious beliefs. He is being forced to resign because he supported a political campaign which had real repercussions for real people. That is a pretty big difference.
daveqr 13y ago
People aren't concerned about the legal right to free speech here, they're concerned about the principle of free speech.
- dalke 13y ago
  How do they reconcile the right of free speech by one person with the belief that others (eg, OKCupid) should not exercise their own rights of free speech and free association? Surely you don't believe that the right of free speech means that people can never call for a boycott or participate in a picket when they disagree with the actions of an organization, or owners and employees thereof? The rights of speech and assembly are equally valued in the first amendment, with a long history in the US. So far no one has been able to tell me how this is anything other than a successful boycott action by those opposed to Eich as a CEO.
yummyfajitas 13y ago
You are absolutely correct that the private sector campaigns against Eich, Orson Scott Card, or Hollywood Communists were not violations of the constitutional amendment. But one can also appeal to a more general principle of free speech, which is ultimately what many people are doing. Scott Alexander has useful thoughts on this topic: http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/12/29/the-spirit-of-the-first-amendment/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/12/29/the-spirit-of-the-first... "A good response to an argument is one that addresses an idea; a bad argument is one that silences it." The gay activists here are attempting to do the latter. It's no different from assorted people attacking Kathy Sierra [1] or Scooby1961 [2], except of course that we happen to like Sierra and Scooby's opinions. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathy_Sierra#Harassment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathy_Sierra#Harassment [2] Scooby is probably less familiar to the HN crowd, he's a bodybuilder/fitness guru who was doxxed by 4chan for no apparent reason. http://newmediarockstars.com/2013/07/4chan-bullies-fitness-guru-scooby-off-youtube-with-doxxing-and-threats-video/ http://newmediarockstars.com/2013/07/4chan-bullies-fitness-g...
- dalke 13y ago
  That's a false equivalence, if only because Kathy Sierra received death threats. A threat of physical violence isn't an argument at all, and free speech doesn't extend to threats of violence. (Eg, http://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_952.htm#sec_53a-62 http://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_952.htm#sec_53a-62 has it as a Class A misdemeanor.) As your own [1] points out, "Robert Scoble ... temporarily suspended their blogs in a show of support for Sierra." By your appeal to a "general principle of free speech", you surely must chastise Scoble's actions. It's also a false appeal, because free speech does not stand alone, not even in the first amendment. The amendment lists several other rights, including the right to assembly, which protects freedom of association. We have a right to boycott. We have a right to picket. We have a right to call on others to participate in the boycott and picket. Those are free speech rights. We have a right to quit a company, or stop volunteering for a company, if we don't like what it does. OKCupid has the right to prevent Firefox users from connecting to their site. These are parts of the freedom of association. See http://www.popehat.com/2013/09/10/speech-and-consequences/ http://www.popehat.com/2013/09/10/speech-and-consequences/ for the importance of freedom of association when talking about freedom of speech. > Yet people often confuse these categories. It's one of the fundamental errors of free speech analysis that I like to write about the most. ... The foundation of "witch hunt" rhetoric is the notion that some free speech (say, Pax's) is acceptable, and other free speech (say, the speech of people criticizing and ridiculing Pax and his employer) is not. You can try to find a coherent or principled way to reconcile that, but you will fail."
Amezarak 13y ago
I don't think when people are talking about free speech in the context of this discussion they are referring to the First Amendment. They are referring to an ideal of free speech, and the aims of having the legal right to free speech enshrined. To take it to an extreme, the First Amendment wouldn't mean much if every single individual in society ostracized you for something you said. It would be small comfort that you weren't imprisoned even though you could no longer work, find shelter, eat, etc. We are certainly free to call for boycotts and resignations, but we should use that freedom very, very carefully. That's how I saw it - I was often frustrated by the very many posts (not so much on HN) that essentially equated free speech totally with the First Amendment and then noted that it only protects you from censorship by the government. Of course! That's not what the argument is. Freedom of speech is enshrined in the First Amendment to protect us from government overreach, but that doesn't mean threats to free speech come solely from the government. Nor do I think that protections from anything but the government should be enshrined in law - you couldn't do so without threatening freedom of speech and association, because all the speech, for and against Eich, was everyone's right. But in an ideal society I would hope for strong social norms that reserve such speech for truly outrageous and heinous behavior. Of course, it is clearly the case that some people regard Eich's donation as truly outrageous and heinous (rather than just deeply wrong, discriminatory, etc), but that's a different debate.

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.
wcummings 13y ago
Racism and sexism are often considered firable offenses. For many, this feels no different. The fact that its tied to a "religious belief" or is still something that can be voted on makes it no less bigoted. His poor response didn't help: "if you disagree with me you're oppressing the poor Indonesians who don't have a mouthpiece!". What an asshole. The fact is, donating to support prop 8 is bigotry in and of itself. Many have said no one experienced overt discrimination, but all that really means is that he wasn't bigoted to the victims' faces, he quietly donated to a cause with the intent of stripping people he calls his friends of their rights. He apologized for hurting his LGBT friends, but stops short of actually apologizing and then justifies his beliefs with those of a 3rd world country. Free speech has nothing to do with this, this is someone whose actions many people, both inside and outside of the organization, found incompatible with what they saw as Mozilla's values, and who can blame them? Tl;dr opposing gay marriage is widely seen as a despicable and regressive cause that many people do not want to associate with
- betterunix 13y ago
  "Free speech has nothing to do with this, this is someone whose actions many people found incompatible with what they saw as Mozilla's values, both inside and outside of the organization, and who can blame them?" I can blame them. Mozilla makes a web browser. Gay marriage has nothing to do with Mozilla's mission or with the political issues Mozilla has to deal with as part of its mission. I could understand the uproar if Eich had donated to a "ban free software" cause, but that is not what happened. You're right, this is not about free speech. Eich was not punished for what he said, he was punished for what he thought. The donation is irrelevant here, other than the fact that it revealed Eich's beliefs. There would be just as much anger and vitriol if instead of a donation someone revealed that Eich had voted in favor of proposition 8.
  - wcummings 13y ago
    Chick-fil-A also has nothing to do with Gay Marriage [1]. It's not like this is some totally unique event, in the real world these issues are more than a proposition on a ballot and they effect the way people do business, whether you like it or not. As an executive at Mozilla, Eich forced the organization to take a stance on the issue by donating. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_same-sex_marriage_controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_same-sex_marriage_c...

nailer 13y ago

Agreed re: free speech law, but forcing someone to resign for their religious beliefs still seems somewhat dubious.

olavk 13y ago
He was not forced to resign over a religious belief. He was forced to resign because he supported a political campaign for a legislation which had real tangible effects for many peoples lives.
- nailer 13y ago
  He supported that campaign based upon his religious beliefs.
  - olavk 13y ago
    OK I don't know anything about why he supported the campaign, and AFAIK he haven't spoken publicly about it at all. But even if it was because of religious beliefs, he is not being forced to resign because of his personal religious beliefs. He is being forced to resign because he supported a political campaign which had real repercussions for real people. That is a pretty big difference.

daveqr 13y ago

People aren't concerned about the legal right to free speech here, they're concerned about the principle of free speech.

dalke 13y ago
How do they reconcile the right of free speech by one person with the belief that others (eg, OKCupid) should not exercise their own rights of free speech and free association? Surely you don't believe that the right of free speech means that people can never call for a boycott or participate in a picket when they disagree with the actions of an organization, or owners and employees thereof? The rights of speech and assembly are equally valued in the first amendment, with a long history in the US. So far no one has been able to tell me how this is anything other than a successful boycott action by those opposed to Eich as a CEO.

yummyfajitas 13y ago

You are absolutely correct that the private sector campaigns against Eich, Orson Scott Card, or Hollywood Communists were not violations of the constitutional amendment. But one can also appeal to a more general principle of free speech, which is ultimately what many people are doing. Scott Alexander has useful thoughts on this topic: http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/12/29/the-spirit-of-the-first-amendment/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/12/29/the-spirit-of-the-first... "A good response to an argument is one that addresses an idea; a bad argument is one that silences it." The gay activists here are attempting to do the latter. It's no different from assorted people attacking Kathy Sierra [1] or Scooby1961 [2], except of course that we happen to like Sierra and Scooby's opinions. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathy_Sierra#Harassment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathy_Sierra#Harassment [2] Scooby is probably less familiar to the HN crowd, he's a bodybuilder/fitness guru who was doxxed by 4chan for no apparent reason. http://newmediarockstars.com/2013/07/4chan-bullies-fitness-guru-scooby-off-youtube-with-doxxing-and-threats-video/ http://newmediarockstars.com/2013/07/4chan-bullies-fitness-g...

dalke 13y ago
That's a false equivalence, if only because Kathy Sierra received death threats. A threat of physical violence isn't an argument at all, and free speech doesn't extend to threats of violence. (Eg, http://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_952.htm#sec_53a-62 http://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_952.htm#sec_53a-62 has it as a Class A misdemeanor.) As your own [1] points out, "Robert Scoble ... temporarily suspended their blogs in a show of support for Sierra." By your appeal to a "general principle of free speech", you surely must chastise Scoble's actions. It's also a false appeal, because free speech does not stand alone, not even in the first amendment. The amendment lists several other rights, including the right to assembly, which protects freedom of association. We have a right to boycott. We have a right to picket. We have a right to call on others to participate in the boycott and picket. Those are free speech rights. We have a right to quit a company, or stop volunteering for a company, if we don't like what it does. OKCupid has the right to prevent Firefox users from connecting to their site. These are parts of the freedom of association. See http://www.popehat.com/2013/09/10/speech-and-consequences/ http://www.popehat.com/2013/09/10/speech-and-consequences/ for the importance of freedom of association when talking about freedom of speech. > Yet people often confuse these categories. It's one of the fundamental errors of free speech analysis that I like to write about the most. ... The foundation of "witch hunt" rhetoric is the notion that some free speech (say, Pax's) is acceptable, and other free speech (say, the speech of people criticizing and ridiculing Pax and his employer) is not. You can try to find a coherent or principled way to reconcile that, but you will fail."

Amezarak 13y ago

I don't think when people are talking about free speech in the context of this discussion they are referring to the First Amendment. They are referring to an ideal of free speech, and the aims of having the legal right to free speech enshrined. To take it to an extreme, the First Amendment wouldn't mean much if every single individual in society ostracized you for something you said. It would be small comfort that you weren't imprisoned even though you could no longer work, find shelter, eat, etc. We are certainly free to call for boycotts and resignations, but we should use that freedom very, very carefully. That's how I saw it - I was often frustrated by the very many posts (not so much on HN) that essentially equated free speech totally with the First Amendment and then noted that it only protects you from censorship by the government. Of course! That's not what the argument is. Freedom of speech is enshrined in the First Amendment to protect us from government overreach, but that doesn't mean threats to free speech come solely from the government. Nor do I think that protections from anything but the government should be enshrined in law - you couldn't do so without threatening freedom of speech and association, because all the speech, for and against Eich, was everyone's right. But in an ideal society I would hope for strong social norms that reserve such speech for truly outrageous and heinous behavior. Of course, it is clearly the case that some people regard Eich's donation as truly outrageous and heinous (rather than just deeply wrong, discriminatory, etc), but that's a different debate.