3 ms·

To crib a very old phrase: I cannot rightly apprehend the confusion of ideas that would lead one to believe that it was ok for Brandon Eich to exercise his Fre

To crib a very old phrase: I cannot rightly apprehend the confusion of ideas that would lead one to believe that it was ok for Brandon Eich to exercise his Freedom of Speech to support an attempt to relegate many mozillans and other Californians to second-class citizenship, but that it was not ok for others to exercise their Freedom of Speech to express their feelings about Eich and his suitableness as a public-facing representative of Mozilla.

invalidOrTaken 13y ago
>...to express their feelings about Eich and his suitableness as a public-facing representative of Mozilla. But who made him "unsuitable?" Was Eich trumpeting his donations? This whole thing has a "Answer me when I talk to you, boy! ----> Don't talk back to me, boy!" feel to it.
- msbarnett 13y ago
  > But who made him "unsuitable?" Was Eich trumpeting his donations? Eich fundamentally believes that many mozillans are second-class human beings, worthy of less rights and respect than others. That makes him enormously unsuitable to lead Mozilla.
sergiosgc 13y ago
Do a mental exercise. Imagine a very vocal group of anti-gay activists causing a tech company to get cold feet about promoting an LGBT supporter to CEO. That's the dual scenario. Does your opinion still hold? This is the Pandora box that was opened here.
- msbarnett 13y ago
  It's not much of a Pandora's box. They're certainly well-within their rights to try to do so. And civil rights activists would call for counter-boycotts, etc. That's how society shakes this stuff out. That's, fundamentally, how free speech and freedom of association and voting with your money works. And more to the point, this is the exact world we already live in. Conservative groups pressured World Vision into reversing their stance of accepting gay marriage just a couple of weeks ago. The Mozilla-Eich brouhaha didn't open any strange new Pandora's box, this kind of thing has been a fundamental part of the American civil landscape for well over a century!
coldtea 13y ago
His act was his right under freedom of speech, in a public democratic process. In fact the majority (or close to it) of the voting public agreed with him, IIRC. If an issue is under vote, it's the voter's right to take whatever side he likes. The counter-action was an ad-hoc protest to strip him from his position. That is, an interference with something not under vote, and in a field not related to his "offending" action. Essentially a vocal group bullying for his firing. I don't see much "confusion of ideas".
- msbarnett 13y ago
  > His act was his right under freedom of speech, in a public democratic process. In fact the majority (or close to it) of the voting public agreed with him, IIRC. If an issue is under vote, it's the voter's right to take whatever side he likes. Ok. We do not generally believe that the minority's rights are a matter to be decided by the majority. But that's a separate issue and I agree his act was certainly an exercise of his guaranteed rights. > The counter-action was an ad-hoc protest to strip him from his position. Wait. Wasn't the counter action merely a number of individuals each exercising their right under freedom of speech, in the public marketplace? The right to free speech applies to everyone, not just to Eich. The right to free speech is a right to speech free from government suppression, not a right to speech free from consequences. It is, especially, not a right to speech free from other people using their right to free speech to complain about your views. > That is, an interference with something not under vote, What, pray tell, is "interference with something not under vote"? Using your freedom of speech to encourage people to take their money/time/attention/web browser usage elsewhere is fundamental to the concepts of Freedom of Speech and the Free Market, is it not? Is this not exactly what Eich was doing? Using his speech and money to support an idea that had negative consequences for others? > and in a field not related to his "offending" action. Eich used his speech and money to support the relegation of LGBTQ-identifying Californians to second-class citizenship. Mozilla has a large number of LGBTQ-identifying employees who live in California. Eich was appointed CEO of Mozilla. This was directly related to his actions. > Essentially a vocal group bullying for his firing. Again, I do not rightly apprehend how a group calling for a man to lose his job is more of a bully, more worthy of condemnation, than a man using his money to attempt to ensure his fellow employees and fellow citizens were constitutionally condemned to second-class citizenship. At no point in this drama has Eich been denied access to any fundamental rights. That's more than you can say for any of his (former) LGBTQ employees.

invalidOrTaken 13y ago

>...to express their feelings about Eich and his suitableness as a public-facing representative of Mozilla. But who made him "unsuitable?" Was Eich trumpeting his donations? This whole thing has a "Answer me when I talk to you, boy! ----> Don't talk back to me, boy!" feel to it.

msbarnett 13y ago
> But who made him "unsuitable?" Was Eich trumpeting his donations? Eich fundamentally believes that many mozillans are second-class human beings, worthy of less rights and respect than others. That makes him enormously unsuitable to lead Mozilla.

sergiosgc 13y ago

Do a mental exercise. Imagine a very vocal group of anti-gay activists causing a tech company to get cold feet about promoting an LGBT supporter to CEO. That's the dual scenario. Does your opinion still hold? This is the Pandora box that was opened here.

msbarnett 13y ago
It's not much of a Pandora's box. They're certainly well-within their rights to try to do so. And civil rights activists would call for counter-boycotts, etc. That's how society shakes this stuff out. That's, fundamentally, how free speech and freedom of association and voting with your money works. And more to the point, this is the exact world we already live in. Conservative groups pressured World Vision into reversing their stance of accepting gay marriage just a couple of weeks ago. The Mozilla-Eich brouhaha didn't open any strange new Pandora's box, this kind of thing has been a fundamental part of the American civil landscape for well over a century!

coldtea 13y ago

His act was his right under freedom of speech, in a public democratic process. In fact the majority (or close to it) of the voting public agreed with him, IIRC. If an issue is under vote, it's the voter's right to take whatever side he likes. The counter-action was an ad-hoc protest to strip him from his position. That is, an interference with something not under vote, and in a field not related to his "offending" action. Essentially a vocal group bullying for his firing. I don't see much "confusion of ideas".

msbarnett 13y ago
> His act was his right under freedom of speech, in a public democratic process. In fact the majority (or close to it) of the voting public agreed with him, IIRC. If an issue is under vote, it's the voter's right to take whatever side he likes. Ok. We do not generally believe that the minority's rights are a matter to be decided by the majority. But that's a separate issue and I agree his act was certainly an exercise of his guaranteed rights. > The counter-action was an ad-hoc protest to strip him from his position. Wait. Wasn't the counter action merely a number of individuals each exercising their right under freedom of speech, in the public marketplace? The right to free speech applies to everyone, not just to Eich. The right to free speech is a right to speech free from government suppression, not a right to speech free from consequences. It is, especially, not a right to speech free from other people using their right to free speech to complain about your views. > That is, an interference with something not under vote, What, pray tell, is "interference with something not under vote"? Using your freedom of speech to encourage people to take their money/time/attention/web browser usage elsewhere is fundamental to the concepts of Freedom of Speech and the Free Market, is it not? Is this not exactly what Eich was doing? Using his speech and money to support an idea that had negative consequences for others? > and in a field not related to his "offending" action. Eich used his speech and money to support the relegation of LGBTQ-identifying Californians to second-class citizenship. Mozilla has a large number of LGBTQ-identifying employees who live in California. Eich was appointed CEO of Mozilla. This was directly related to his actions. > Essentially a vocal group bullying for his firing. Again, I do not rightly apprehend how a group calling for a man to lose his job is more of a bully, more worthy of condemnation, than a man using his money to attempt to ensure his fellow employees and fellow citizens were constitutionally condemned to second-class citizenship. At no point in this drama has Eich been denied access to any fundamental rights. That's more than you can say for any of his (former) LGBTQ employees.