7 ms·

And where do you draw the line? Are you going to defend people that oppose Women's Suffrage too? What about slavery supporters? These were just political opi

And where do you draw the line? Are you going to defend people that oppose Women's Suffrage too? What about slavery supporters? These were just political opinions once too. But today you'll find that they get you fired as CEO. And for good reason: blacks and women (and gays) are your customers and employees and business partners.

batmansbelt 13y ago
And friends, family, and neighbours.
twoodfin 13y ago
I'm genuinely curious where you would draw your line. Would you support firing Mozilla's CEO if it's revealed he voted for Mitt Romney? What if he gave his campaign $1000?
- davidw 13y ago
  Maybe we can all agree that it's a fuzzy, gray line, and move on to talking about things that can actually move our businesses forward, or are cool hacks, interesting phenomenon or otherwise generate more light than heat.
  - twoodfin 13y ago
    A fuzzy, gray line that cost a smart hacker a job he was otherwise incredibly well-suited for? If it's really that indistinct, it's scary: I might want to work for a company some day that cares about where that line is, and I'd like to stay on the right side of it.
    - davidw 13y ago
      "Working for" and "being the leader and representative of" are two different things. Eich's views were known to Mozilla for a while before this blew up. If you want an honest answer, I think if you want to play the political game, you need to keep your cards close to your chest. You may not like that answer, and you folks can furiously click on the downvote arrow all you like, but I think that's the reality of it: for an extreme example, look at how closely every single aspect of US presidential candidates' lives are picked over, both present and past. I'll add to that: not everyone should do that - I'm glad that some people have stuck their necks out in the past. We all owe some of them a debt of gratitude. But, by and large, they're probably not the same people aiming at the top job in a large corporation.
      - twoodfin 13y ago
        You may not like that answer, and you folks can furiously click on the downvote arrow all you like, but I think that's the reality of it: for an extreme example, look at how closely every single aspect of US presidential candidates' lives are picked over, both present and past. Well, obviously I couldn't downvote your comment, and I hope others won't either, since you're essentially right. I'm just disappointed that the Mozilla CEO position is something that requires playing a "political game" in the manner you're describing. "Politics" in the general sense, of course, exists everywhere there's human interaction, but our civic society is damaged when bright, motivated people are discouraged from participating in it lest their actions be held against them in other spheres of their lives. I'm most disturbed at the number of people who seem to think that it would be a great idea if we could, for example, keep track of the political donations of everyone we do business with so as not to "reward" those on the other side of whatever issues we care deeply about. After all, it's just an application of our "free speech"! That would, I think, be utterly poisonous to our way of life. If this kind of economic activism stays confined to CEO's of open source companies with dependence on their communities' views, I guess that isn't so terrible.
        davidw 13y ago
        I agree that it's important to be able to interact in society at large with others whose beliefs may be quite different from your own. At my own self-funded business, http://LiberWriter.com http://LiberWriter.com we get our share of political books, some of which I... am not a fan of, putting it mildly. But we accept their money and try and do a good job on all our books. I liked grellas' comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7567700 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7567700 But that said, I guess everyone - or most people at least - has some things where there really is a line. I would not want to do business with someone on record as having donated to and espousing the views of the KKK, for instance. If they're the teller at the supermarket, I'm not likely to find out about it, but once someone steps into the spotlight, that kind of thing has a higher chance of surfacing, and when faced with it, I'm going to act on my own views. (Regarding LiberWriter, no, we've never had any books that extreme, thankfully). So I guess that's another reason why being the CEO is different.
    - adl 13y ago
      I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that Brendan was NOT 'incredibly' suited for the job. Let me explain: I have no doubt that Brendan was an incredible CTO/is an excellent hacker/engineer. But being CEO is not about that, it's about being a leader. Being a uniter and a communicator. a galvanizer to the corporation/community he was trying to lead. Forget about his donation a few years ago. In the short time he was CEO, he had the opportunity to weather the storm (so to speak) he and Mozilla Corp found themselves in. But in fact, by avoiding the issue, he dug a even deeper hole. His one interview about the issue to The Guardian was a complete mess PR wise: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/01/mozilla-ceo-brendan-eich-refuses-to-quit http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/01/mozilla-ce... It was a mistake to appoint him as CEO. I'm sad that he left Mozilla, he could have continued to provide a lot of value to Mozilla and the Open Web in several capacities, But he was not "incredibly well-suited" for the job as Mozilla CEO, IMHO.
      - danudey 13y ago
        This is an excellent point. Even if you feel as though Eich's donations didn't disqualify him from the position, or if you didn't feel that boycotting a product based on its CEO's stated views was bad, he handled this mess absolutely horribly. I could come up with a lot of better ways to say what he tried (and failed) to communicate, and whether those points are relevant or not, he completely botched communicating them at all. For example, his comments about LGBT rights in Indonesia appeared to be about how Mozilla, as a global company in a global market, has to tread carefully in non-liberal markets, because coming out as strongly, unshakeably, and vocally in favour of LGBT rights could carve you out of entire markets which would be willing to look the other way but won't tolerate 'shoving it in their faces' so to speak. Instead, it sounded like 'gay rights isn't really a given, so who knows how things will end up right?', which sounds to me like he's saying 'This fight isn't over yet, we still might win', which is ten times worse than just saying nothing.
- davidgerard 13y ago
  It was outrage from the users that did for Eich.
- rondon 13y ago
  You need to draw lots of lines for lots of different personal beliefs. Prop 8 is an easy one to know which side is on the right side of universal human rights. You are free to feel that gays shouldn't marry, just like you are free to say that women shouldn't be CEOs, but you disqualify yourself from being the head of a group like Mozilla when you do that.
- jsutton 13y ago
  I think the line would be at human rights violations. Having different political views is fine and expected--it's a completely different thing to deny peoples' right to marry simply because they are gay. A societal change in norms is necessary to combat discrimination, and the best way to shape societal norms is to apply social pressure.
- bunderbunder 13y ago
  Speaking for myself, I find the idea that a line should be drawn to be downright antithetical. What I support is individual liberties. Which means that it doesn't necessarily matter whether or not I support something. Individuals and organizations are generally free to do what they want, including being free to do things I don't like, and vice versa. Meaning: 1. Brendan Eich was perfectly free to make political contributions. 2. He was perfectly free to say whatever he wants about the issue in public. 3. People who don't mind are perfectly free to not care. 4. People who do mind are perfectly free to complain loudly. 5. People who do mind are free to walk away from the company. 6. Companies are free to respond to the above according to their interests. Yes, the upshot of all of this is that the court of public opinion can feel like a meat grinder sometimes. But as far as I'm aware there's not necessarily anything you can do about that without resorting to curtailment of some of our most sacred human rights.
  - twoodfin 13y ago
    That's very clear, and I appreciate your distillation of the issue as you see it. But it still bothers me: How do you distinguish this approach from the blacklisting of alleged Communists in 1950's Hollywood? Or was that an unfortunate but unavoidable consequence of the neutral or beneficial practice of people's political views being subject to the court of public (and institutional) opinion? I would like to say: I respect your right to not hire someone you believe to be a Communist, but I don't believe you're acting in the best interests of society as a whole when you choose to allow someone's personal political activities to inform your hiring decisions.
    - nostromo 13y ago
      McCarthyism at its core was the US Federal Government suppressing speech. Not just Congressman McCarthy, but scary agencies like the FBI. The first amendment protects your freedom of speech from limitation by the government. It does not protect you from customer revolt because of your CEO's opinions.
      - bunderbunder 13y ago
Mikeb85 13y ago
Well let's just fire all Muslims, Christians, Buddhists and Hindus since those religions all traditionally are against homosexuality and also have sexist elements.
- homulilly 13y ago
  People protested Eich because of his personal actions, not for being a member of any religious or ethnic group. Besides, I personally know Christians and Muslims who not only do not work against gay and feminist rights, but are activists in those areas. All you're accomplishing here is making yourself look intolerant.
  - Mikeb85 13y ago
    Going to a mosque, church or temple is an action. People usually donate to their religious organisation, and in turn that money may go to advertising traditional relationships or beliefs, and at the very least is money going to an organisation that won't marry gays...
    - homulilly 13y ago
      There are many people who are still religious but do not go to a church or temple. There people who do go to church who do not donate. There are churches that are neutral or even supportive on the issues of gay rights. There are also people who don't agree with everything their church does, but feel the good it accomplishes (helping the needy, for example) outweighs the bad. None of these people, are doing anything close to the same thing as Eich's personal, fully intentional, concentrated contributions directly to the cause of undermining human rights. It's important to judge people based on their real actions and beliefs instead of generalizing based on stereotypes. That's when we risk getting onto the so-called slippery slope.
  - baddox 13y ago
    Being a member of a religious group is also a personal action.
- 13y ago
leoc 13y ago
How about Stalin apologists? Should they be tolerated in high-ranking technical or creative jobs?
- mpyne 13y ago
  You mean like that "Izzy" Stone guy who passed away recently?
jessriedel 13y ago
The classic reference here is "On Liberty" by John Stuart Mills. http://www.bartleby.com/130/ http://www.bartleby.com/130/ He persuasively advocates that the line shouldn't be drawn based on the acceptability or reasonability of the opinion, but on whether the behavior is mere communication (i.e. leaflets, speeches, opinions, blogs, TV ads) or actual action. In particular, when the causal influence of the alleged wrong doing propagates through the minds of voting citizens, this is not something that ought to be retaliated against (by the government or by individuals). Incidentally, Mills strongly argues that speech should be protected even under the assumption that it is wrong and that its suppression would not have slippery slope effects. If you can't see why what would make sense, I encourage you to read him. For more on arguments like Mills, as well as some modern push-back grounded in the principle of offense, see the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/
- Crito 13y ago
  Eich's right to say what he wants remains intact. Nobody has attacked it, and it has not been eroded in any way. What he does not have is 'a right to not have people respond to his speech with speech of their own'. In fact, any speech in response to Eich's speech is just as protected as his speech. If this were not the case, then conversation/debate would not be possible. In other countries with hate speech legislation, Eich's right to speak out against civil liberties might be restricted. However this is not the case in America, he is free to say whatever he pleases (although his actions are restricted, and if he commits an illegal action his (otherwise legal) speech may be used to make the case that his action was a hate crime).
  - humanrebar 13y ago
    jessriedel clearly says that free speech should extend beyond the law to include social norms: "In particular, when the causal influence of the alleged wrong doing propagates through the minds of voting citizens, this is not something that ought to be retaliated against (by the government or by individuals)." ...this is really the crux of the debate. Many of those upset about the Eich situation still think it should be legal to fire Eich for his speech but it should not be socially acceptable. In other words, many people believe what happened to Eich was unethical, however legal.
outside1234 13y ago
I'm going to draw the line at conflating people's personal opinions with their professional ones. I totally disagree with Brendan's position on gay rights, but I completely support his right to have his own personal opinions. If we don't separate these issues, we are only enabling other corporations to fire leaders because they _DO_ personally support gay rights. That's not acceptable - but we can't have it both ways.
- MetaCosm 13y ago
  Bullshit, of course we can (and do) have it both ways. Look at interracial marriage. If you are actively trying to ban interracial marriage, we CAN AND WILL run your ass out on a rail so you can't be CEO. If on the other-hand -- you think two people of different races getting married is fine, yey for you. This just -- insanely dumb -- fox news style -- belief that every issue has two EQUAL and VALID sides is nonsense. If you are a huge racist, you will be fired. THERE IS NO OTHER SIDE of the freaking racial issue. Just like there is no other side of the gay rights issue.
  - outside1234 13y ago
    Well, here's a gay activist explaining the very same position, so clearly there is: http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/full-episodes/vk9n20/april-9--2014---sheryl-sandberg http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/full-episodes/vk9n20/april-9-...
baddox 13y ago
It sounds like you need to be able to predict the future in order to know what political views are currently acceptable for CEOs to support. What if in the future we live in a stateless socialist society, and the idea of wage labor or private ownership of means of production is widely considered immoral or repugnant? Or what if in the future we live in a stateless capitalist society, where the idea of taxation or economic regulation is widely considered morally repugnant? Or worse yet, what if society reverts back to considering slavery acceptable and abolitionism repugnant?
- wonderzombie 13y ago
  Your analogy ignores the facts. Eich didn't make a mistake 4 yrs ago-- he still holds the same views as evidenced by his interviews! Eich had multiple opportunities to indicate whether his views had changed. He defended his views, and rather poorly on the merits, I might add. Compare and contrast how the CEO of OkCupid handled a similar situation, having donated $500 to an anti-choice, anti-gay candidate in '04. He apologized publicly and stated unequivocally that he believes marriage is a civil right. This was not a "gotcha." Eich held the same views all along.
coldtea 13y ago
>Are you going to defend people that oppose Women's Suffrage too? What about slavery supporters? These were just political opinions once too. Still are. And a lover of democracy and freedom should defend (not to be conflated with "advocate for") all of these people. They are entitles to their opinions, they are entitled to have their opinions battle other opinions in the court of public opinion, and they are entitled not to lose their jobs or be beaten etc over them. Now, if they do something against the law inspired by those opinions, they should of course be punished. But merely having them it's totally their right. Free speech is only free insofar as it comes with no other consequences besides counter-arguments. For, those that believe otherwise, I'd say that their opinoon means that people who talked against slavery in 1840 and were fired, ostracized from their community or beaten up were also living in a "free speach" environment.
- wonderzombie 13y ago
  they are entitled not to lose their jobs or be beaten etc over them These things are not at all the same. And in this case, we're talking about a CEO, the public face of a company, not an otherwise private citizen. For, those that believe otherwise, I'd say that their opinoon means that people who talked against slavery in 1840 and were fired, ostracized from their community or beaten up were also living in a "free speach" environment. Should I put words in your mouth, about how we'd still be living with Jim Crow if you had your way? "Let's not offend anyone who's racist, lest they feel like their rights to bigotry are being undermined!" What I just wrote and what you wrote above are not productive. It's also pretty rich to compare abolitionists -- people campaigning for an expansion of human rights -- to someone who did the exact opposite. Anyway, you're essentially arguing that free speech means freedom from consequences, and it just doesn't. Free speech is not absolute, as has been demonstrated time and again. You can't insult your boss to their face and expect to get away with it b/c free speech. Likewise you can't try to deny an entire class of people their rights and expect zero consequences b/c free speech. It's never worked that way.
  - coldtea 13y ago
    >These things are not at all the same. And in this case, we're talking about a CEO, the public face of a company, not an otherwise private citizen. A job is a job. The "a CEO is a public face" is a shallow excuse. The same excuse (essentially not being suitable to be a public face for the company/employeer) has been used to fire people from teachers to waiters (far from CEO positions). >Should I put words in your mouth, about how we'd still be living with Jim Crow if you had your way? "Let's not offend anyone who's racist, lest they feel like their rights to bigotry are being undermined!" I don't understand the argument here. I never wrote anything about voting against laws like the Jim Crow ones. Just that bigots have a right to their opinions too. And in fact, when the Jim Crow laws were discarded, those bigots still held their opinions. (Well, it's actually even more complicated than that. For example Jim Crow laws had little to do with pure bigotry and a lot to do with monetary exploitation of the blacks. More than bigots, their advocates were ruthless disgusting businessmen.). >It's also pretty rich to compare abolitionists -- people campaigning for an expansion of human rights -- to someone who did the exact opposite. How about Eich's human right to his job? Or his human right to vote for whatever he likes? Or is it like someone who is against a human right (as considered by some) is OK to lose other rights of his? >Anyway, you're essentially arguing that free speech means freedom from consequences, and it just doesn't. It should, or it has no meaning. If free speech means solely the ability to say something publicly (and then suffer possible consequences), then that was available in every era and to everybody. If so, losing your head for talking against the church in 1600 was also a "free speech" environment. Getting fired during McCarthyism was also compatible with "free speech". >Free speech is not absolute, as has been demonstrated time and again. I'm not saying what free speech has been historically, so what has been "demonstrated time and again" doesn't say a lot in this argument. History has a bad track record with regards to free speech. I'm saying what free speech should be, and how its champions like Voltaire envisioned it. >Likewise you can't try to deny an entire class of people their rights and expect zero consequences b/c free speech. Well, it seems that generations over generations of Californians could not only try, but actively deny that class of people their rights and have zero consequences. In fact when Eich supported his position, it was also the LAW that denied then. And the majority of the population (IIRC) agreed with that. It was put to vote -- that itself means that not only you could "try to deny", but that your right to do so, voting no on the matter, was sanctioned by the state.
m52go 13y ago
Time considerations are vital. Supporting slavery right now is immoral. Opposing gay marriage right now is NOT immoral right now however much you can't stand it.

batmansbelt 13y ago

And friends, family, and neighbours.

twoodfin 13y ago

I'm genuinely curious where you would draw your line. Would you support firing Mozilla's CEO if it's revealed he voted for Mitt Romney? What if he gave his campaign $1000?

davidw 13y ago
Maybe we can all agree that it's a fuzzy, gray line, and move on to talking about things that can actually move our businesses forward, or are cool hacks, interesting phenomenon or otherwise generate more light than heat.
- twoodfin 13y ago
  A fuzzy, gray line that cost a smart hacker a job he was otherwise incredibly well-suited for? If it's really that indistinct, it's scary: I might want to work for a company some day that cares about where that line is, and I'd like to stay on the right side of it.
  - davidw 13y ago
    "Working for" and "being the leader and representative of" are two different things. Eich's views were known to Mozilla for a while before this blew up. If you want an honest answer, I think if you want to play the political game, you need to keep your cards close to your chest. You may not like that answer, and you folks can furiously click on the downvote arrow all you like, but I think that's the reality of it: for an extreme example, look at how closely every single aspect of US presidential candidates' lives are picked over, both present and past. I'll add to that: not everyone should do that - I'm glad that some people have stuck their necks out in the past. We all owe some of them a debt of gratitude. But, by and large, they're probably not the same people aiming at the top job in a large corporation.
    - twoodfin 13y ago
      You may not like that answer, and you folks can furiously click on the downvote arrow all you like, but I think that's the reality of it: for an extreme example, look at how closely every single aspect of US presidential candidates' lives are picked over, both present and past. Well, obviously I couldn't downvote your comment, and I hope others won't either, since you're essentially right. I'm just disappointed that the Mozilla CEO position is something that requires playing a "political game" in the manner you're describing. "Politics" in the general sense, of course, exists everywhere there's human interaction, but our civic society is damaged when bright, motivated people are discouraged from participating in it lest their actions be held against them in other spheres of their lives. I'm most disturbed at the number of people who seem to think that it would be a great idea if we could, for example, keep track of the political donations of everyone we do business with so as not to "reward" those on the other side of whatever issues we care deeply about. After all, it's just an application of our "free speech"! That would, I think, be utterly poisonous to our way of life. If this kind of economic activism stays confined to CEO's of open source companies with dependence on their communities' views, I guess that isn't so terrible.
      - davidw 13y ago
        I agree that it's important to be able to interact in society at large with others whose beliefs may be quite different from your own. At my own self-funded business, http://LiberWriter.com http://LiberWriter.com we get our share of political books, some of which I... am not a fan of, putting it mildly. But we accept their money and try and do a good job on all our books. I liked grellas' comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7567700 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7567700 But that said, I guess everyone - or most people at least - has some things where there really is a line. I would not want to do business with someone on record as having donated to and espousing the views of the KKK, for instance. If they're the teller at the supermarket, I'm not likely to find out about it, but once someone steps into the spotlight, that kind of thing has a higher chance of surfacing, and when faced with it, I'm going to act on my own views. (Regarding LiberWriter, no, we've never had any books that extreme, thankfully). So I guess that's another reason why being the CEO is different.
  - adl 13y ago
    I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that Brendan was NOT 'incredibly' suited for the job. Let me explain: I have no doubt that Brendan was an incredible CTO/is an excellent hacker/engineer. But being CEO is not about that, it's about being a leader. Being a uniter and a communicator. a galvanizer to the corporation/community he was trying to lead. Forget about his donation a few years ago. In the short time he was CEO, he had the opportunity to weather the storm (so to speak) he and Mozilla Corp found themselves in. But in fact, by avoiding the issue, he dug a even deeper hole. His one interview about the issue to The Guardian was a complete mess PR wise: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/01/mozilla-ceo-brendan-eich-refuses-to-quit http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/01/mozilla-ce... It was a mistake to appoint him as CEO. I'm sad that he left Mozilla, he could have continued to provide a lot of value to Mozilla and the Open Web in several capacities, But he was not "incredibly well-suited" for the job as Mozilla CEO, IMHO.
    - danudey 13y ago
      This is an excellent point. Even if you feel as though Eich's donations didn't disqualify him from the position, or if you didn't feel that boycotting a product based on its CEO's stated views was bad, he handled this mess absolutely horribly. I could come up with a lot of better ways to say what he tried (and failed) to communicate, and whether those points are relevant or not, he completely botched communicating them at all. For example, his comments about LGBT rights in Indonesia appeared to be about how Mozilla, as a global company in a global market, has to tread carefully in non-liberal markets, because coming out as strongly, unshakeably, and vocally in favour of LGBT rights could carve you out of entire markets which would be willing to look the other way but won't tolerate 'shoving it in their faces' so to speak. Instead, it sounded like 'gay rights isn't really a given, so who knows how things will end up right?', which sounds to me like he's saying 'This fight isn't over yet, we still might win', which is ten times worse than just saying nothing.
davidgerard 13y ago
It was outrage from the users that did for Eich.
rondon 13y ago
You need to draw lots of lines for lots of different personal beliefs. Prop 8 is an easy one to know which side is on the right side of universal human rights. You are free to feel that gays shouldn't marry, just like you are free to say that women shouldn't be CEOs, but you disqualify yourself from being the head of a group like Mozilla when you do that.
jsutton 13y ago
I think the line would be at human rights violations. Having different political views is fine and expected--it's a completely different thing to deny peoples' right to marry simply because they are gay. A societal change in norms is necessary to combat discrimination, and the best way to shape societal norms is to apply social pressure.
bunderbunder 13y ago
Speaking for myself, I find the idea that a line should be drawn to be downright antithetical. What I support is individual liberties. Which means that it doesn't necessarily matter whether or not I support something. Individuals and organizations are generally free to do what they want, including being free to do things I don't like, and vice versa. Meaning: 1. Brendan Eich was perfectly free to make political contributions. 2. He was perfectly free to say whatever he wants about the issue in public. 3. People who don't mind are perfectly free to not care. 4. People who do mind are perfectly free to complain loudly. 5. People who do mind are free to walk away from the company. 6. Companies are free to respond to the above according to their interests. Yes, the upshot of all of this is that the court of public opinion can feel like a meat grinder sometimes. But as far as I'm aware there's not necessarily anything you can do about that without resorting to curtailment of some of our most sacred human rights.
- twoodfin 13y ago
  That's very clear, and I appreciate your distillation of the issue as you see it. But it still bothers me: How do you distinguish this approach from the blacklisting of alleged Communists in 1950's Hollywood? Or was that an unfortunate but unavoidable consequence of the neutral or beneficial practice of people's political views being subject to the court of public (and institutional) opinion? I would like to say: I respect your right to not hire someone you believe to be a Communist, but I don't believe you're acting in the best interests of society as a whole when you choose to allow someone's personal political activities to inform your hiring decisions.
  - nostromo 13y ago
    McCarthyism at its core was the US Federal Government suppressing speech. Not just Congressman McCarthy, but scary agencies like the FBI. The first amendment protects your freedom of speech from limitation by the government. It does not protect you from customer revolt because of your CEO's opinions.
    - bunderbunder 13y ago

Mikeb85 13y ago

Well let's just fire all Muslims, Christians, Buddhists and Hindus since those religions all traditionally are against homosexuality and also have sexist elements.

homulilly 13y ago
People protested Eich because of his personal actions, not for being a member of any religious or ethnic group. Besides, I personally know Christians and Muslims who not only do not work against gay and feminist rights, but are activists in those areas. All you're accomplishing here is making yourself look intolerant.
- Mikeb85 13y ago
  Going to a mosque, church or temple is an action. People usually donate to their religious organisation, and in turn that money may go to advertising traditional relationships or beliefs, and at the very least is money going to an organisation that won't marry gays...
  - homulilly 13y ago
    There are many people who are still religious but do not go to a church or temple. There people who do go to church who do not donate. There are churches that are neutral or even supportive on the issues of gay rights. There are also people who don't agree with everything their church does, but feel the good it accomplishes (helping the needy, for example) outweighs the bad. None of these people, are doing anything close to the same thing as Eich's personal, fully intentional, concentrated contributions directly to the cause of undermining human rights. It's important to judge people based on their real actions and beliefs instead of generalizing based on stereotypes. That's when we risk getting onto the so-called slippery slope.
- baddox 13y ago
  Being a member of a religious group is also a personal action.
13y ago

leoc 13y ago

How about Stalin apologists? Should they be tolerated in high-ranking technical or creative jobs?

mpyne 13y ago
You mean like that "Izzy" Stone guy who passed away recently?

jessriedel 13y ago

The classic reference here is "On Liberty" by John Stuart Mills. http://www.bartleby.com/130/ http://www.bartleby.com/130/ He persuasively advocates that the line shouldn't be drawn based on the acceptability or reasonability of the opinion, but on whether the behavior is mere communication (i.e. leaflets, speeches, opinions, blogs, TV ads) or actual action. In particular, when the causal influence of the alleged wrong doing propagates through the minds of voting citizens, this is not something that ought to be retaliated against (by the government or by individuals). Incidentally, Mills strongly argues that speech should be protected even under the assumption that it is wrong and that its suppression would not have slippery slope effects. If you can't see why what would make sense, I encourage you to read him. For more on arguments like Mills, as well as some modern push-back grounded in the principle of offense, see the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/

Crito 13y ago
Eich's right to say what he wants remains intact. Nobody has attacked it, and it has not been eroded in any way. What he does not have is 'a right to not have people respond to his speech with speech of their own'. In fact, any speech in response to Eich's speech is just as protected as his speech. If this were not the case, then conversation/debate would not be possible. In other countries with hate speech legislation, Eich's right to speak out against civil liberties might be restricted. However this is not the case in America, he is free to say whatever he pleases (although his actions are restricted, and if he commits an illegal action his (otherwise legal) speech may be used to make the case that his action was a hate crime).
- humanrebar 13y ago
  jessriedel clearly says that free speech should extend beyond the law to include social norms: "In particular, when the causal influence of the alleged wrong doing propagates through the minds of voting citizens, this is not something that ought to be retaliated against (by the government or by individuals)." ...this is really the crux of the debate. Many of those upset about the Eich situation still think it should be legal to fire Eich for his speech but it should not be socially acceptable. In other words, many people believe what happened to Eich was unethical, however legal.

outside1234 13y ago

I'm going to draw the line at conflating people's personal opinions with their professional ones. I totally disagree with Brendan's position on gay rights, but I completely support his right to have his own personal opinions. If we don't separate these issues, we are only enabling other corporations to fire leaders because they _DO_ personally support gay rights. That's not acceptable - but we can't have it both ways.

MetaCosm 13y ago
Bullshit, of course we can (and do) have it both ways. Look at interracial marriage. If you are actively trying to ban interracial marriage, we CAN AND WILL run your ass out on a rail so you can't be CEO. If on the other-hand -- you think two people of different races getting married is fine, yey for you. This just -- insanely dumb -- fox news style -- belief that every issue has two EQUAL and VALID sides is nonsense. If you are a huge racist, you will be fired. THERE IS NO OTHER SIDE of the freaking racial issue. Just like there is no other side of the gay rights issue.
- outside1234 13y ago
  Well, here's a gay activist explaining the very same position, so clearly there is: http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/full-episodes/vk9n20/april-9--2014---sheryl-sandberg http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/full-episodes/vk9n20/april-9-...

baddox 13y ago

It sounds like you need to be able to predict the future in order to know what political views are currently acceptable for CEOs to support. What if in the future we live in a stateless socialist society, and the idea of wage labor or private ownership of means of production is widely considered immoral or repugnant? Or what if in the future we live in a stateless capitalist society, where the idea of taxation or economic regulation is widely considered morally repugnant? Or worse yet, what if society reverts back to considering slavery acceptable and abolitionism repugnant?

wonderzombie 13y ago
Your analogy ignores the facts. Eich didn't make a mistake 4 yrs ago-- he still holds the same views as evidenced by his interviews! Eich had multiple opportunities to indicate whether his views had changed. He defended his views, and rather poorly on the merits, I might add. Compare and contrast how the CEO of OkCupid handled a similar situation, having donated $500 to an anti-choice, anti-gay candidate in '04. He apologized publicly and stated unequivocally that he believes marriage is a civil right. This was not a "gotcha." Eich held the same views all along.

coldtea 13y ago

>Are you going to defend people that oppose Women's Suffrage too? What about slavery supporters? These were just political opinions once too. Still are. And a lover of democracy and freedom should defend (not to be conflated with "advocate for") all of these people. They are entitles to their opinions, they are entitled to have their opinions battle other opinions in the court of public opinion, and they are entitled not to lose their jobs or be beaten etc over them. Now, if they do something against the law inspired by those opinions, they should of course be punished. But merely having them it's totally their right. Free speech is only free insofar as it comes with no other consequences besides counter-arguments. For, those that believe otherwise, I'd say that their opinoon means that people who talked against slavery in 1840 and were fired, ostracized from their community or beaten up were also living in a "free speach" environment.

wonderzombie 13y ago
they are entitled not to lose their jobs or be beaten etc over them These things are not at all the same. And in this case, we're talking about a CEO, the public face of a company, not an otherwise private citizen. For, those that believe otherwise, I'd say that their opinoon means that people who talked against slavery in 1840 and were fired, ostracized from their community or beaten up were also living in a "free speach" environment. Should I put words in your mouth, about how we'd still be living with Jim Crow if you had your way? "Let's not offend anyone who's racist, lest they feel like their rights to bigotry are being undermined!" What I just wrote and what you wrote above are not productive. It's also pretty rich to compare abolitionists -- people campaigning for an expansion of human rights -- to someone who did the exact opposite. Anyway, you're essentially arguing that free speech means freedom from consequences, and it just doesn't. Free speech is not absolute, as has been demonstrated time and again. You can't insult your boss to their face and expect to get away with it b/c free speech. Likewise you can't try to deny an entire class of people their rights and expect zero consequences b/c free speech. It's never worked that way.
- coldtea 13y ago
  >These things are not at all the same. And in this case, we're talking about a CEO, the public face of a company, not an otherwise private citizen. A job is a job. The "a CEO is a public face" is a shallow excuse. The same excuse (essentially not being suitable to be a public face for the company/employeer) has been used to fire people from teachers to waiters (far from CEO positions). >Should I put words in your mouth, about how we'd still be living with Jim Crow if you had your way? "Let's not offend anyone who's racist, lest they feel like their rights to bigotry are being undermined!" I don't understand the argument here. I never wrote anything about voting against laws like the Jim Crow ones. Just that bigots have a right to their opinions too. And in fact, when the Jim Crow laws were discarded, those bigots still held their opinions. (Well, it's actually even more complicated than that. For example Jim Crow laws had little to do with pure bigotry and a lot to do with monetary exploitation of the blacks. More than bigots, their advocates were ruthless disgusting businessmen.). >It's also pretty rich to compare abolitionists -- people campaigning for an expansion of human rights -- to someone who did the exact opposite. How about Eich's human right to his job? Or his human right to vote for whatever he likes? Or is it like someone who is against a human right (as considered by some) is OK to lose other rights of his? >Anyway, you're essentially arguing that free speech means freedom from consequences, and it just doesn't. It should, or it has no meaning. If free speech means solely the ability to say something publicly (and then suffer possible consequences), then that was available in every era and to everybody. If so, losing your head for talking against the church in 1600 was also a "free speech" environment. Getting fired during McCarthyism was also compatible with "free speech". >Free speech is not absolute, as has been demonstrated time and again. I'm not saying what free speech has been historically, so what has been "demonstrated time and again" doesn't say a lot in this argument. History has a bad track record with regards to free speech. I'm saying what free speech should be, and how its champions like Voltaire envisioned it. >Likewise you can't try to deny an entire class of people their rights and expect zero consequences b/c free speech. Well, it seems that generations over generations of Californians could not only try, but actively deny that class of people their rights and have zero consequences. In fact when Eich supported his position, it was also the LAW that denied then. And the majority of the population (IIRC) agreed with that. It was put to vote -- that itself means that not only you could "try to deny", but that your right to do so, voting no on the matter, was sanctioned by the state.

m52go 13y ago

Time considerations are vital. Supporting slavery right now is immoral. Opposing gay marriage right now is NOT immoral right now however much you can't stand it.