Mozilla CEO resignation raises free-speech issues

Apr 4, 2014 Full story: The Fresno Bee 52

Mozilla co-founder Brendan Eich stepped down Thursday as CEO, just days after his appointment.

Full Story
First Prev
of 3
Next Last
Sir Andrew

Honolulu, HI

#1 Apr 4, 2014
This is a stupid story. Anyone in any position can go as far as s/he wants in expressing his/her political positions. But the exercise of free speech brings with it the inevitability of consequences that will arise out of an unpopular stance. And let's face it, no stance will be popular with everyone.

We say what we will, knowing full well that someone will disagree, sometimes loudly and in a public forum. Where we err—and this very much includes we in the gay community—is by demanding that anyone who disagrees with us be brought down. That destroys any possibility of courteous discourse. And it makes us look like the very bullies we have repeatedly complained about

From the very beginning of the modern gay movement, we have had to battle our own people, whose strident voices demanded angry and violent responses to any and every slight. From the radical members of the Gay Liberation Front in the south, of which I was, embarrassingly, one of the three founding members (and NOT a radical), to the let's-destroy-everything-we-to uch members of ACT-UP, so many of our groups have repeatedly been brought down from the inside by the few but loud; the bullies in our midst.

Everyone, on the left, the right and all other position, must learn to treat each other with more respect or we'll end up like the morons in Congress who refuse even to consider a position other than the one their corporate masters have told them stand firm on. We, the people, are better than our Congress, and we must never forget it. It is up to us to speak our minds, let others speak theirs and stop punishing anyone who disagrees with either side.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#2 Apr 4, 2014
Mozilla CEO resignation DOES NOT raise free-speech issues. The First Amendment's protections of Freedom Of Speech only prohibits the government[s] from restricting Freedom Of Speech. It does NOT apply to individuals, nor organizations.

You say something stupid and\or bigoted, then you suffer the consequences.

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

St. Louis, MO

#3 Apr 5, 2014
Fa-Foxy wrote:
Mozilla CEO resignation DOES NOT raise free-speech issues. The First Amendment's protections of Freedom Of Speech only prohibits the government[s] from restricting Freedom Of Speech. It does NOT apply to individuals, nor organizations.
You say something stupid and\or bigoted, then you suffer the consequences.
I don't like it when I have to say this to you, but on this you are 100% correct. His speech was not abridged, it was reacted to by someone other than the government.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#4 Apr 5, 2014
This is reactionary-ism by members of our community, and harms us.

“Live and let live”

Since: Apr 08

New Orleans

#5 Apr 5, 2014
This is not a matter if free speech. It's a PR issue. The CEO of a company is highly influential in setting the course, vision, and policies of a company. Mozilla has a strong policy protecting its workers against workplace discrimination and Eich's views both stand in contrast to the company's values and that of the vast majority of its development network. This would have hurt the company's image badly.

On the other hand, I do feel kind of bad for him. Eich is a brilliant programmer and had changed out world with his contributions. With that kind of status, he does have a special responsibility to be careful of what issues he throws his weight behind. He did not have to resign. He could have used this as an opportunity for self-reflection. He could have apologized for his views or even simply expressed regret over having supported a measure that would have forced those views on others. I'm not saying he should have evolved, but merely that he could recognize the value sometimes in live and let live.

“God made in the image of man”

Since: May 07

Sausalito, CA

#6 Apr 5, 2014
Sir Andrew wrote:
This is a stupid story. Anyone in any position can go as far as s/he wants in expressing his/her political positions. But the exercise of free speech brings with it the inevitability of consequences that will arise out of an unpopular stance. And let's face it, no stance will be popular with everyone.
We say what we will, knowing full well that someone will disagree, sometimes loudly and in a public forum. Where we err—and this very much includes we in the gay community—is by demanding that anyone who disagrees with us be brought down. That destroys any possibility of courteous discourse. And it makes us look like the very bullies we have repeatedly complained about
From the very beginning of the modern gay movement, we have had to battle our own people, whose strident voices demanded angry and violent responses to any and every slight. From the radical members of the Gay Liberation Front in the south, of which I was, embarrassingly, one of the three founding members (and NOT a radical), to the let's-destroy-everything-we-to uch members of ACT-UP, so many of our groups have repeatedly been brought down from the inside by the few but loud; the bullies in our midst.
Everyone, on the left, the right and all other position, must learn to treat each other with more respect or we'll end up like the morons in Congress who refuse even to consider a position other than the one their corporate masters have told them stand firm on. We, the people, are better than our Congress, and we must never forget it. It is up to us to speak our minds, let others speak theirs and stop punishing anyone who disagrees with either side.
What he did went way beyond free speech.

Free speech would give him the right to voice his religious conviction that gay couples should not be given the same legal rights as heterosexual couples, based on his interpretation of the Bible. That is acceptable. But that's not what he did. Instead, he contributed money to hiring agents that went from door to door in California and intimidated people through lies into believing their children would be turned into homosexuals if gay couples continued to enjoy legal recognition in California. It was a financial assault on us.

Now, since he felt entitled to participate actively in taking away our legal recognition, what on earth prevents us from stating publicly that we and our supporters will no longer patronize the organization of which he is the head?

I'm sorry, Andrew, but you are way off base when you declare his actions to be simply a political OPINION, while portraying ours as "bullying" and "angry, violent responses." Withholding our patronage is the only way we have to fight back. Sanctions work. It brought down South Africa's apartheid regime, and it will force people interested in a public or business career to THINK before they actively participate in hurting others. Whether gay couples enjoy legal recognition has NOTHING to do with married heterosexual couples, and any effort to undermine the happiness of gay couples is mean-spirited and reprehensible.

Let people speak out if they disagree with something, but a targeted financial assault deserves an equal and opposite financial response.
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#7 Apr 6, 2014
snyper wrote:
This is reactionary-ism by members of our community, and harms us.
He resigned..... he wasn't fired.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#8 Apr 6, 2014
I think there was a typo in the headline. Shouldn't it read:
"Mozilla CEO resignation raises personal accountability issues"?

I have no problem with one saying what they wish, or donating to the political candidates of their choosing, however if one is going to commit to such a course of action in the public sphere, and is likely to have a high profile job, they need to be prepared to be held accountable for their views.

There are plenty of ways that an intelligent businessman could shroud their political giving.
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#9 Apr 6, 2014
Eich's $1000 donation suspended marriage equality in California for several years; along with others who haven't been caught yet
.
Now Eich pays the consequence for his transgression
.
Do the crime; do the time
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#10 Apr 6, 2014
lides wrote:
I think there was a typo in the headline. Shouldn't it read:
"Mozilla CEO resignation raises personal accountability issues"?
I have no problem with one saying what they wish, or donating to the political candidates of their choosing, however if one is going to commit to such a course of action in the public sphere, and is likely to have a high profile job, they need to be prepared to be held accountable for their views.
There are plenty of ways that an intelligent businessman could shroud their political giving.
Very true
.
California requires public disclosure of donations $100 and over; so Eich's $1,000 donation became public record and was published in papers and newsletters all over America. A map of America was published on the web; with push-pins indicating the names and addresses of donors; some as far away as Pennsylvania and Florida
.
He could have kept it under $99 if he didn't want to shout his opinion to the world
.
But he didn't; so now he deals with the consequences

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#11 Apr 6, 2014
RalphB wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't like it when I have to say this to you, but on this you are 100% correct. His speech was not abridged, it was reacted to by someone other than the government.
I find Fa-Foxy to be correct far more often than any of the statists in here who demand we all worship their god, the government.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#12 Apr 6, 2014
snyper wrote:
This is reactionary-ism by members of our community, and harms us.
Do you agree that forcing a baker to bake a cake is also reactionary-ism that also harms the gay community? For me this is a battle between two religions and which one is going to win. The Christian religion verses the Government religion. The Christian didn't want to obey the Government Religion's rules so those two gay men, worshipers of their government religion went to the ACLU and lodged a complaint demanding that the baker be punished for refusing to obey another God. The baker wanted to obey his Christian God and the gay couple wanted him to obey the Government God. Looks like the Government God won. Or did it? Many in the Government God also kowtow to those who also believe in the Christian God so just look at what is happening in Mississippi.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#13 Apr 6, 2014
lides wrote:
I think there was a typo in the headline. Shouldn't it read:
"Mozilla CEO resignation raises personal accountability issues"?
I have no problem with one saying what they wish, or donating to the political candidates of their choosing, however if one is going to commit to such a course of action in the public sphere, and is likely to have a high profile job, they need to be prepared to be held accountable for their views.
There are plenty of ways that an intelligent businessman could shroud their political giving.
its Bill Maher lides, wait till you get to the "hushed silence" part.
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#15 Apr 6, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
I find Fa-Foxy to be correct far more often than any of the statists in here who demand we all worship their god, the government.
Are you flip flopping, Rev Anal?
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#16 Apr 6, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you agree that forcing a baker to bake a cake is also reactionary-ism that also harms the gay community? For me this is a battle between two religions and which one is going to win. The Christian religion verses the Government religion. The Christian didn't want to obey the Government Religion's rules so those two gay men, worshipers of their government religion went to the ACLU and lodged a complaint demanding that the baker be punished for refusing to obey another God. The baker wanted to obey his Christian God and the gay couple wanted him to obey the Government God. Looks like the Government God won. Or did it? Many in the Government God also kowtow to those who also believe in the Christian God so just look at what is happening in Mississippi.
Oh for crying out loud, Rev Anal... What a hot, steaming pile of horseshit.
You might be able to fool 5 yr olds with your hyperbole but don't insult us by saying the government is a religion.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#17 Apr 6, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =R1oUAo3aPFcXX its Bill Maher lides, wait till you get to the "hushed silence" part.
Do you notice that others are citing court decisions and all you can scare up to cite is a comedian?

That pretty much says everything about your argument Alan.
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#18 Apr 6, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you notice that others are citing court decisions and all you can scare up to cite is a comedian?
That pretty much says everything about your argument Alan.
Excellent point.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#19 Apr 6, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
I find Fa-Foxy to be correct far more often than any of the statists in here who demand we all worship their god, the government.
And not only that, I am ALWAYS Fair. And Balanced.:) WOOF !

(and oddly enough, although I have a multitude of cats, I have no Foxes.:()

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#20 Apr 6, 2014
Rainbow Kid wrote:
<quoted text>
Very true
.
California requires public disclosure of donations $100 and over; so Eich's $1,000 donation became public record and was published in papers and newsletters all over America. A map of America was published on the web; with push-pins indicating the names and addresses of donors; some as far away as Pennsylvania and Florida
.
He could have kept it under $99 if he didn't want to shout his opinion to the world
.
But he didn't; so now he deals with the consequences
Requiring public dislosure of political contributioens is UNCONSTITUTIONAl. Why ? Because it violates the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination.

In the U.S., we have certain LIBERTIES and RIGHTS that are protected by the U.S. Constitution sand state constitutions.

A bedrock principle and RIGHT in the U.S. is that NOBODY, a government official, or a non-government person, can compel you to open your mouth and say ANYTHING. If a cop stops you on the street and talks to you and asks you questions, you are under no legal, nor moral, obligation to say anything at all. In a court of law, you likewise cannot be compelled to say word abut anything. That goes for whether you are a defendant or not, not guilty of a crime or not. You cannot be compelled to speak.(the reason for this protection found in the 5th Amendment is because the British courts, and the courts of other countries, often used physical torture to compel someone to speak in a court when they did not wish to).

Therefore, legally requiring someone to ADVERTISE to the public, what their political affiliations are, and how much money or services they gave to a particular candidate, party, or cause, DIRECTLY VIOLATES THOSE 5TH AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS.

I have no doubt that SCOTUS will find, in the near future, that these state and federal laws unconstitutional, violating both the 1st Amendment, and the 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The solution to speech you don't like, political or otherwise, is NOT regulation of that speech but MORE Free Speech.
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#21 Apr 6, 2014
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Requiring public dislosure of political contributioens is UNCONSTITUTIONAl. Why ? Because it violates the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination.
In the U.S., we have certain LIBERTIES and RIGHTS that are protected by the U.S. Constitution sand state constitutions.
A bedrock principle and RIGHT in the U.S. is that NOBODY, a government official, or a non-government person, can compel you to open your mouth and say ANYTHING. If a cop stops you on the street and talks to you and asks you questions, you are under no legal, nor moral, obligation to say anything at all. In a court of law, you likewise cannot be compelled to say word abut anything. That goes for whether you are a defendant or not, not guilty of a crime or not. You cannot be compelled to speak.(the reason for this protection found in the 5th Amendment is because the British courts, and the courts of other countries, often used physical torture to compel someone to speak in a court when they did not wish to).
Therefore, legally requiring someone to ADVERTISE to the public, what their political affiliations are, and how much money or services they gave to a particular candidate, party, or cause, DIRECTLY VIOLATES THOSE 5TH AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS.
I have no doubt that SCOTUS will find, in the near future, that these state and federal laws unconstitutional, violating both the 1st Amendment, and the 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The solution to speech you don't like, political or otherwise, is NOT regulation of that speech but MORE Free Speech.
Keep it under $99.99 and your 'free speech' is protected in California
.
Hit $100 and even Putin will have your name; address; phone number; pic of your car and a map to your front door in 34 minutes

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Palo Alto Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Long Beacha s middle class, then ... and now 1 hr Lucy 4
Moderators why have i been shadow banned? (Jun '14) Feb 27 Fracking Doodooda 4
My Teen Verbally Abuses Me (Feb '09) Feb 26 tera 112
Caltrain accident Feb 25 Mary J 1
VTA seems to think El Camino Real bus riders ar... (May '12) Feb 25 Jack Offmoore 14
Ron Fleishman is the World's Most Underrated Ph... Feb 25 Etsy 63
I m housewife need home based job Feb 24 Rajveer9033383005 11

Palo Alto News Video

Palo Alto Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Palo Alto People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 10:24 am PST

Bleacher Report10:24AM
Report: Johnson Expected to Be Offered Pay Cut
NBC Sports 3:15 AM
Ex-Raider Kaluka Maiava serving 15 days in jail for assault
Bleacher Report 8:09 AM
Chris Culliver: Latest News, Rumors and Speculation Surrounding Free-Agent CB
Bleacher Report12:22 PM
Report: Raiders to Release LB LaMarr Woodley
NFL 1:26 PM
Raiders to cut ties with LaMarr Woodley after one year