4 ms·

Finally, some sanity on this issue. Thank you, thank you. > "I mean, isn’t this supposed to be how things work?" > "But, but… Mr. Eich should be free to belie

Finally, some sanity on this issue. Thank you, thank you. > "I mean, isn’t this supposed to be how things work?" > "But, but… Mr. Eich should be free to believe what he wants, and to contribute to any political cause he so chooses! Well, and so he is, and I would, as they say, defend to the death his right to do so. What he is not free from — and this is the thing which people seem to fall down on again and again — are the consequences of his actions."

gcp 13y ago
I don't get this viewpoint. You can say whatever you want, as long as you don't want a bullet in your head. Does anyone recognize that as freedom of speech? I doubt so. Clearly we recognize freedom of speech as the ability to speak out with some limit on the repercussions of that. I'm not clear what they should be, but there certainly are some.
- devindotcom 13y ago
  "Freedom of speech" is a guarantee that the government will not curtail your ability to say what you want on whatever topic, with some specific limitations. You can say whatever you want. If I say "you know what, I don't think black and white kids should go to the same school," I assume the liability for that statement. I may think it's reasonable, and other may as well, but the fact is in this day and age that statement and sentiment will do me all kinds of damage. Especially if I'm a public figure. Are we actively working against people who believe differently from us? Yes, that is called activism. As long as it is nonviolent resistance, civil disobedience, or simply speaking out, we are within our rights and fighting for what we think is important: equal civil rights for all people. Will that get people fired? Hell yes. You think superintendents who were in favor of segregated schools didn't lose their jobs? You think diners that wouldn't serve black people didn't go out of business? Activism aims at producing consequences, whether it's changed laws, greater visibility, or the removal of people who support the opposite cause. In the case of civil rights the stakes are high enough and the groups large enough that major consequences are possible. Eich was one of them. Here's to a hundred more!
- badman_ting 13y ago
  A bullet in your head, right. Anyway, has anyone else noticed how supposedly a community of people not wanting one guy as CEO is a terrible tragedy, a lynching and on and on, but not Proposition 8 and the larger movement to prevent people in love from being able to marry? "The death of one man is a tragedy…"
hippiehippo 13y ago
"the consequences of his actions." So I guess that he is fine with a company fireing, let's say, an employee who donated to Obama's compaign because... consequences of his actions, right? To be honest, his reasoning sounds like the communist propaganda from Eastern Europe: you are free NOT to join the Communist Party, but then you won't be able to hold a high(er) ranking position at your job, and you'll be stuck at a mid-level for the rest of your life. See? It's freedom! You are free NOT to sign the donation of your agriculture lands to the State, but then the State will take it anyway. But what matters is that your are free to choose, and... consequences.
- badman_ting 13y ago
  If the community of which Mozilla is a part consisted of people who so disagreed with the action of voting for Obama, then, sure. We play the "freedom" game in lots of cases. You can be racist, you are technically free to act in racist ways in public, but the consequence of such behavior is that most people will choose not to associate with you. You will lose opportunities to do business, to socialize in most cases, and more. So, are you free to be racist? Not really, not if you want to be part of the society, even though the technical answer is yes. So, the larger society does not "tolerate" racism. And the community of which Mozilla is a part does not "tolerate" the CEO being part of a movement to prevent gays marrying. I don't consider either to be a tragedy. This is about what groups of people will allow, and what they won't.
akitaro 13y ago
"So, the board of a private company appoints someone as CEO who is gay, many of the stakeholders of the company (employees, outside developers, companies whose products are accessed by the other company’s products) object and decide to act in their own personal or private capacity to complain and/or boycott, and ultimately as a result — and without governmental intervention at any level — the CEO decides his presence in the position is not in the interest of the success and welfare of the private company and chooses to resign." Kinda different all of a sudden, huh.
- badman_ting 13y ago
  No, it isn't different -- in fact that's kinda the point. Do you really think there aren't groups, communities, and companies who would (at least tacitly) prevent such a thing from happening? But y'all don't think that's a problem, it's only when it goes in the other direction that it's a tragedy, a lynching, a bullet in the head. The backlash against this is ridiculous.

gcp 13y ago

I don't get this viewpoint. You can say whatever you want, as long as you don't want a bullet in your head. Does anyone recognize that as freedom of speech? I doubt so. Clearly we recognize freedom of speech as the ability to speak out with some limit on the repercussions of that. I'm not clear what they should be, but there certainly are some.

devindotcom 13y ago
"Freedom of speech" is a guarantee that the government will not curtail your ability to say what you want on whatever topic, with some specific limitations. You can say whatever you want. If I say "you know what, I don't think black and white kids should go to the same school," I assume the liability for that statement. I may think it's reasonable, and other may as well, but the fact is in this day and age that statement and sentiment will do me all kinds of damage. Especially if I'm a public figure. Are we actively working against people who believe differently from us? Yes, that is called activism. As long as it is nonviolent resistance, civil disobedience, or simply speaking out, we are within our rights and fighting for what we think is important: equal civil rights for all people. Will that get people fired? Hell yes. You think superintendents who were in favor of segregated schools didn't lose their jobs? You think diners that wouldn't serve black people didn't go out of business? Activism aims at producing consequences, whether it's changed laws, greater visibility, or the removal of people who support the opposite cause. In the case of civil rights the stakes are high enough and the groups large enough that major consequences are possible. Eich was one of them. Here's to a hundred more!
badman_ting 13y ago
A bullet in your head, right. Anyway, has anyone else noticed how supposedly a community of people not wanting one guy as CEO is a terrible tragedy, a lynching and on and on, but not Proposition 8 and the larger movement to prevent people in love from being able to marry? "The death of one man is a tragedy…"

hippiehippo 13y ago

"the consequences of his actions." So I guess that he is fine with a company fireing, let's say, an employee who donated to Obama's compaign because... consequences of his actions, right? To be honest, his reasoning sounds like the communist propaganda from Eastern Europe: you are free NOT to join the Communist Party, but then you won't be able to hold a high(er) ranking position at your job, and you'll be stuck at a mid-level for the rest of your life. See? It's freedom! You are free NOT to sign the donation of your agriculture lands to the State, but then the State will take it anyway. But what matters is that your are free to choose, and... consequences.

badman_ting 13y ago
If the community of which Mozilla is a part consisted of people who so disagreed with the action of voting for Obama, then, sure. We play the "freedom" game in lots of cases. You can be racist, you are technically free to act in racist ways in public, but the consequence of such behavior is that most people will choose not to associate with you. You will lose opportunities to do business, to socialize in most cases, and more. So, are you free to be racist? Not really, not if you want to be part of the society, even though the technical answer is yes. So, the larger society does not "tolerate" racism. And the community of which Mozilla is a part does not "tolerate" the CEO being part of a movement to prevent gays marrying. I don't consider either to be a tragedy. This is about what groups of people will allow, and what they won't.

akitaro 13y ago

"So, the board of a private company appoints someone as CEO who is gay, many of the stakeholders of the company (employees, outside developers, companies whose products are accessed by the other company’s products) object and decide to act in their own personal or private capacity to complain and/or boycott, and ultimately as a result — and without governmental intervention at any level — the CEO decides his presence in the position is not in the interest of the success and welfare of the private company and chooses to resign." Kinda different all of a sudden, huh.

badman_ting 13y ago
No, it isn't different -- in fact that's kinda the point. Do you really think there aren't groups, communities, and companies who would (at least tacitly) prevent such a thing from happening? But y'all don't think that's a problem, it's only when it goes in the other direction that it's a tragedy, a lynching, a bullet in the head. The backlash against this is ridiculous.