Mozilla CEO resignation raises free-s...

Mozilla CEO resignation raises free-speech issues

There are 52 comments on the The Fresno Bee story from Apr 4, 2014, titled Mozilla CEO resignation raises free-speech issues. In it, The Fresno Bee reports that:

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

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Fresno Bee.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#22 Apr 6, 2014
Rainbow Kid wrote:
<quoted text>
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
yes, and that is OBVIOUSLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL because the government is not only FORCING you to speak or publish, but in doing so you may incriminate yourself. As I said, that violates both the 1st Amendment and the 5th Amendment.

Why are Democrats and liberals always LYING about their support of teh First Amendment and the U.S. Constitution, when at the same time they are proclaiming to support those things, they work, sometimes successfully, to VIOLATE those very LIBERTIES, RIGHTS, and CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS ?

Explain that.
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#23 Apr 6, 2014
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
yes, and that is OBVIOUSLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL because the government is not only FORCING you to speak or publish, but in doing so you may incriminate yourself. As I said, that violates both the 1st Amendment and the 5th Amendment.
Why are Democrats and liberals always LYING about their support of teh First Amendment and the U.S. Constitution, when at the same time they are proclaiming to support those things, they work, sometimes successfully, to VIOLATE those very LIBERTIES, RIGHTS, and CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS ?
Explain that.
It is necessary to prevent religion-driven Anti-American criminal activity
.
In the classic example of PropH8; the mormon 'church' came prancing into California to interfere with the free election process; and when they exceeded their $99; they ended up getting their arrogant butts whipped in a court trial as a warning to any other bird-brains dumb enough to defy the law
.
Crime does not pay

Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#24 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.
The Constitution was written for honorable distinguished people who behave themselves
.
Laws are created as needed to control bird-brains who do not behave themselves
.
So which are you? Honorable and distinguished?
.
Or Bird-brain ;o)

“God made in the image of man”

Since: May 07

Sausalito, CA

#25 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.
Should you be compelled to disclose how much income you had last year?

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#26 Apr 6, 2014
Umninimuzi wrote:
<quoted text>
Should you be compelled to disclose how much income you had last year?
Prior to the ratification of the 16th Amendment, nobody ever had to do that. Ad in fact, you really don't have to say what you earned, because you can let the IRS figure it for you if you want each year.

People have claimed that the filing of income taxes violates their 1st Amendment rights and their 5th Amendment rights. I agree, but the courts always disagree.

The 16th amendment should be repealed, and the income tax, and the IRS should be abolished. Simply replace the income tax with a 15% federal sales tax on everything. No exemptions, no deductions. And it would cost the federal government almost nothing to administer because since most states have their own state sales tax collection system in place, the states could just collect the federal sales tax at the same time they collect their own state sales tax, and forward the additional 15% to the federal government.

And federal borrowing would be less because instead of the federal income taxes coming in annually, or quarterly, the sales tax remiittance is monthly.

Why not just do that ?
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#27 Apr 6, 2014
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Prior to the ratification of the 16th Amendment, nobody ever had to do that. Ad in fact, you really don't have to say what you earned, because you can let the IRS figure it for you if you want each year.
People have claimed that the filing of income taxes violates their 1st Amendment rights and their 5th Amendment rights. I agree, but the courts always disagree.
The 16th amendment should be repealed, and the income tax, and the IRS should be abolished. Simply replace the income tax with a 15% federal sales tax on everything. No exemptions, no deductions. And it would cost the federal government almost nothing to administer because since most states have their own state sales tax collection system in place, the states could just collect the federal sales tax at the same time they collect their own state sales tax, and forward the additional 15% to the federal government.
And federal borrowing would be less because instead of the federal income taxes coming in annually, or quarterly, the sales tax remiittance is monthly.
Why not just do that ?
A 15% sales tax is simply a reduction of the value of a dollar to 85cents
.
It is all just smoke and mirrors
.
So why not just call a dollar an '85' and eliminate taxes?

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#28 Apr 6, 2014
Rainbow Kid wrote:
<quoted text>
A 15% sales tax is simply a reduction of the value of a dollar to 85cents
.
It is all just smoke and mirrors
.
So why not just call a dollar an '85' and eliminate taxes?
Why don't you study some economics and taxation ?(My degree is in Economics, with a minor in Political Science, and Theology).
Morton

Boardman, OR

#29 Apr 6, 2014
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Why don't you study some economics and taxation ?(My degree is in Economics, with a minor in Political Science, and Theology).
He's too busy being stupid.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#30 Apr 6, 2014
Morton wrote:
<quoted text>
He's too busy being stupid.
LOL

Yeah, I agree with that.

“God made in the image of man”

Since: May 07

Sausalito, CA

#31 Apr 6, 2014
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Prior to the ratification of the 16th Amendment, nobody ever had to do that. Ad in fact, you really don't have to say what you earned, because you can let the IRS figure it for you if you want each year.
People have claimed that the filing of income taxes violates their 1st Amendment rights and their 5th Amendment rights. I agree, but the courts always disagree.
The 16th amendment should be repealed, and the income tax, and the IRS should be abolished. Simply replace the income tax with a 15% federal sales tax on everything. No exemptions, no deductions. And it would cost the federal government almost nothing to administer because since most states have their own state sales tax collection system in place, the states could just collect the federal sales tax at the same time they collect their own state sales tax, and forward the additional 15% to the federal government.
And federal borrowing would be less because instead of the federal income taxes coming in annually, or quarterly, the sales tax remiittance is monthly.
Why not just do that ?
It's a nice thought, but people would still have to declare their sales to calculate the sales tax collected on it, wouldn't they? Either way, the government relies on businesses' voluntary disclosures of their sales numbers to collect taxes (albeit under threat of prosecution if they don't). So if you object to 'self-incrimination' NO tax system is going to work in your world.

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#32 Apr 7, 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.
I suppose that's a wonderful thing for you, but frankly, I don't give a flying fig for what you find or don't find.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#33 Apr 7, 2014
Umninimuzi wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Sorry, but political contributions and activities are covered by the 1st Amendment.

Like that has never been abused before.

He should not have been forced to resign for anything other than a violation of his contract, or incompetence.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#34 Apr 7, 2014
Rainbow Kid wrote:
<quoted text>
A 15% sales tax is simply a reduction of the value of a dollar to 85cents
.
It is all just smoke and mirrors
.
So why not just call a dollar an '85' and eliminate taxes?
It doesn't matter. The sheeple will still keep sending it to China.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#35 Apr 7, 2014
Umninimuzi wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a nice thought, but people would still have to declare their sales to calculate the sales tax collected on it, wouldn't they? Either way, the government relies on businesses' voluntary disclosures of their sales numbers to collect taxes (albeit under threat of prosecution if they don't). So if you object to 'self-incrimination' NO tax system is going to work in your world.
As we all know, commercial organizations have less constitutional rights, particularly 1st Amendment rights, than do individuals. Obviously no tax system is perfect, obviously not every single person is going to be happy with a particular tax system. I believe my suggestion is the most equitable and easiest to implement.

Incidentally, USA TODAY has an interesting article yesterday on some people's incomes.

According to yesterday's article, the average American worker's salaries rose only 1.4% in 2013. But median CEO compensation rose 13% in 2013.

But one particular number was astounding, by anyone's measure: Starbuck's CEO Schultz made $142 million last year. Oracle CEO Larry Ellison made $150 million last year.

And FACEBOOK'S MARK ZUCKERBERG, WHO IS STILL IN HIS 20'S, MADE $ 3,300,000,000 (3.3 BILLION DOLLARS) LAST YEAR ALONE !( But is he REALLY happy ??? YO U BET HE IS !)

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#36 Apr 7, 2014
Umninimuzi wrote:
So if you object to 'self-incrimination' NO tax system is going to work in your world.
Many things wouldn't work if the world ran according to the way Foxy thought it should.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#37 Apr 7, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Many things wouldn't work if the world ran according to the way Foxy thought it should.
But MORE things WOULD work better, and the world would be better for it. Remember that people lived here for hundreds of years WITHOUT a tax on their incomes, and we got along just fine.

And if you don't want to do away with the federal income tax, but rather just improve it, than do away with the IRS, and all the tax attorneys and thee accounts with all their creative loopholes and deductions, and simply make the federal income tax a FLAT 15% WITH NO DEDUCTIONS, EXEMPTIONS OR EXCLUSIONS AT ALL FOR ANYONE.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#38 Apr 7, 2014
Better yet, elect ME King. I will rule with an Iron Sceptre. But ALWAYS be Fair. And Balanced. :)

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#39 Apr 7, 2014
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
But MORE things WOULD work better, and the world would be better for it. Remember that people lived here for hundreds of years WITHOUT a tax on their incomes, and we got along just fine.
And if you don't want to do away with the federal income tax, but rather just improve it, than do away with the IRS, and all the tax attorneys and thee accounts with all their creative loopholes and deductions, and simply make the federal income tax a FLAT 15% WITH NO DEDUCTIONS, EXEMPTIONS OR EXCLUSIONS AT ALL FOR ANYONE.
No, the whole system would be broken, and we would be surrendering to Putin.

Your opinions running the country would be universally disastrous.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#40 Apr 7, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
No, the whole system would be broken, and we would be surrendering to Putin.
Your opinions running the country would be universally disastrous.
On the contrary, Russia is the first country I'd invade, slaying the evil Beast once and for all,as we should've done decades ago.

Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#41 Apr 7, 2014
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but political contributions and activities are covered by the 1st Amendment.
Like that has never been abused before.
He should not have been forced to resign for anything other than a violation of his contract, or incompetence.
He wasn't forced to resign. When his personal views became public, his effectiveness as a leader went to ZERO.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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
Facebook vs Twitter 15 hr Glass Edit 55
Ron Fleishman is the World's Most Colorful Digi... 15 hr Glass Edit 147
Ron Fleishman is the World's Most Underrated Ph... (Sep '15) 16 hr Glass Edit 439
News 'Undocumented' but inspiring (Nov '12) Mon Paul Syntor 115
News Redwood City: Tenants protest large rent hikes ... Sun Redwood City 2
HELP STOP Discrimination against Agricultural Z... Jan 9 un agenda 21 4
News Man gets 6 months in cockfighting (Mar '08) Jan 9 un agenda 21 20

Palo Alto Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Palo Alto Mortgages