MacNN Forums (http://forums.macnn.com/)
-   Tech News (http://forums.macnn.com/tech-news/)
-   -   Eich's Mozilla departure induces bilateral criticism, Firefox bans (http://forums.macnn.com/113/tech-news/509513/eichs-mozilla-departure-induces-bilateral-criticism/)

 
NewsPoster Apr 5, 2014 11:30 AM
Eich's Mozilla departure induces bilateral criticism, Firefox bans
Following the <a href="http://macnn.com/rd/307374==http://www.electronista.com/articles/14/04/03/exit.induced.by.discovery.of.unpopular.1000.politi cal.contribution/" rel='nofollow'>departure of Brendan Eich</a> from Mozilla, an assortment of high-profile journalists and authors have taken to the Internet to slam Mozilla, Silicon Valley culture, and OKCupid for the handling of the incident. Both conservative and liberal activists are seeking a similar boycott of Mozilla products -- the Firefox browser in particular -- and some have blocked the browser from accessing sites entirely.<br />
<br />
Mozilla's statement addresses the impossibility of placating everyone. The post announcing Eich's departure said that "equality is necessary for meaningful speech, and you need free speech to fight for equality. Figuring out how to stand for both at the same time can be hard."<br />
<br />
Eich, a co-founder of Mozilla and the inventor of JavaScript, came under fire shortly after being appointed to the CEO post when he was shown to have donated to and supported California's overturned "Prop 8" amendment, which would have discriminated against gay couples that wished to marry and gain the same privileges (and tax benefits) as heterosexual couples. The Supreme Court eventually agreed with a lower court that the amendment violated the "equal protection" clause of the Constitution, and allowed a lower court's overturning order to stand.<br />
<br />
Gay advocacy site <a href="http://macnn.com/rd/307351==http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2014/04/04/63741" rel='nofollow'>Box Turtle Bulletin</a> notes the disparity in the passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, behavior of Internet users, and the departure of Eich. While Eich left voluntarily, the advocacy site noted that "a time when we are demanding passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act so that companies can't just up and fire LGBT employees because they don't agree with them -- as they can now in about two-thirds of our states -- we need to think very long and hard about whether we should demand someone be removed from his job for exercising his constitutional rights as part of the cornerstone of our democracy: a free and fair election."<br />
<br />
Conor Friedersdorf, a proponent of marriage equality, wrote in <a href="http://macnn.com/rd/307352==http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/mozillas-gay-marriage-litmus-test-violates-liberal-values/360156/" rel='nofollow'><em>The Atlantic</em></a> that "calls for his ouster were premised on the notion that all support for Proposition 8 was hateful, and that a CEO should be judged not just by his or her conduct in the professional realm, but also by political causes he or she supports as a private citizen." Friedersdorf added that "If that attitude spreads, it will damage our society."<br />
<br />
<a href="http://macnn.com/rd/307353==http://dish.andrewsullivan.com" rel='nofollow'>Daily Dish</a> blogger Andrew Sullivan, a gay conservative but long-time advocate of marriage equality, noted that "what we're talking about is the obvious and ugly intolerance of parts of the gay movement, who have reacted to years of being subjected to social obloquy by returning the favor." Sullivan believes that the event was "unbelievably stupid for the gay rights movement," but his views have rarely aligned with the more common philosophy of the gay community.<br />
<br />
Strongly conservative <a href="http://macnn.com/rd/307354==http://www.truthrevolt.org" rel='nofollow'>TruthRevolt</a> has blocked Firefox from accessing its website. Users accessing the website will see a message saying in part that Eich's departure "followed a vicious smear campaign against Eich by dating website OKCupid" and that they "would therefore prefer that our users not use Mozilla software to access TruthRevolt, given Mozilla's crackdown on political and religious positions held by millions of Americans."<br />
<br />
Before his departure, Eich <a href="http://macnn.com/rd/307355==https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/" rel='nofollow'>did apologize</a> for the donation, which made no difference to the activists and Mozilla employees calling for his exile from the open-source foundation because he did not recant his support of the proposition. He wrote in his apology that his donation, and personal stance (which he declined to detail) wouldn't prevent him from supporting the values of the company, and he would work with "LGBT communities and allies, to listen and learn what does and doesn't make Mozilla supportive and welcoming."<br />
<br />
He also promised to "work on new initiatives to reach out to those who feel excluded, or who have been marginalized in ways that makes their contributing to Mozilla and to open source difficult." <a href="http://macnn.com/rd/307356==http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/05/us-usa-mozilla-fallout-idUSBREA3402320140405" rel='nofollow'>Reuters</a> notes that "when Eich made his $1,000 donation in opposition to same-sex marriage, the political landscape for gay rights was different than it is today." When the bill was up for consideration, "presidential candidate Barack Obama and his Democratic primary rival Hillary Clinton were five years away from embracing legalization of same-sex marriage," though both had voiced support for civil unions and changes in the laws that discriminate against gay couples.
 
climacs Apr 5, 2014 12:14 PM
*shrug* conservatives had no problem with Martin Bashir being compelled to resign from CNN (read: "quit or we will fire you") because of something inflammatory he said in response to something inflammatory and profoundly stupid that Sarah Palin said (comparing ACA to slavery). Who stood up for his 'free speech rights'? Not Sarah Palin. Not conservatives.
 
rtamesis Apr 5, 2014 12:17 PM
These days you can't express your opinion anymore in public or even in private without potentially risking your career.
 
aviamquepasa Apr 5, 2014 12:28 PM
I wonder what most CEOs will be saying in private. In public they can only act as saying the minimum things, at risk of any hard-opinion movement acting histerically like a child.
 
aviamquepasa Apr 5, 2014 12:29 PM
and, by the way, we NEED firefox
 
lkrupp Apr 5, 2014 01:15 PM
1984 is here people. It even has its own version of Doublethink. I think this witch hunt will eventually backfire on the LGBT activists. Making people afraid to express their opinion only drives that opinion underground. It does not change the opinion. Only open discussion and dialogue changes opinions.
 
lodo Apr 5, 2014 01:32 PM
I reached out to Mozilla and received a "get over it" response and quote "that is a small section of IT support", I asked if his donation had matching funds, since mozilla is one of the tech companies that never answered that question. BTW- Apple did answer and once they answered the question they admitted they had not known since it is a automatic procedure at that time. I was angry at Mozilla's response to me so I asked everyone I know to uninstall from their computers and phones. Also to tell mozilla why they where leaving.

This was wrong on my part. Companies should be given time to deal with backlashes, especially when it is a private action and not a corporate one. But the people that answer emails at Mozilla should be fired for being such idiots to people like me.
 
Spheric Harlot Apr 5, 2014 01:58 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by rtamesis (Post 4272667)
These days you can't express your opinion anymore in public or even in private without potentially risking your career.
I don't think there has ever been a time where people DIDN'T have to fear business consequences for public idiocy.
 
rtamesis Apr 5, 2014 02:15 PM
A lot of young people these days do or say immature things online, which becomes part of the permanent record. Twenty years later, what they did in their youth will come back to haunt them, especially if they become public figures. The Internet has actually made it easier for individualls and organizations to go after people for doing or saying things that they do not agree with.
 
Charles Martin Apr 5, 2014 02:25 PM
Spheric: as usual I think you are right. Indeed, in decades previous, civic and political leaders were *often* forced to resign over faux pas far smaller than someone foolishly donating to a hate group. While I'm sure it doesn't seem so to some people, the bar on what you can get away with saying and doing and not lose your leadership position in industry or politics has in fact gone way UP rather than way down ...
 
Spheric Harlot Apr 5, 2014 02:48 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by rtamesis (Post 4272693)
A lot of young people these days do or say immature things online, which becomes part of the permanent record. Twenty years later, what they did in their youth will come back to haunt them, especially if they become public figures. The Internet has actually made it easier for individualls and organizations to go after people for doing or saying things that they do not agree with.
McCarthy and his henchmen seemed to do fairly well without it.
 
nowwhatareyoulookingat Apr 5, 2014 04:09 PM
He did NOT apologize for his donation to support Proposition 8. He only said when he acts as Mozilla's CEO, he would not discriminate against LGBT's.
 
Gazoobee Apr 5, 2014 04:26 PM
An interesting angle on the controversy, but the author misrepresents things when he/she refers to this as a "political cause" that Eich is supporting as a "private citizen" which implies that it's just a personal opinion of his similar to whether taxes should be higher or lower.

What we are actually talking about here is bigotry. It's a bit of an old trope at this point but substitute racial equality for sexual equality and it all looks a lot darker. The man wasn't just expressing a political opinion, he was supporting a bigoted cause. It's also quite legal to belong to the KKK but I am certain if an executive of a major company was found to do so, they would be fired on the spot.

Gay rights and gay marriage is a human rights issue of great importance, not just a political thing about which one has "opinions."
 
Mike Wuerthele Apr 5, 2014 05:45 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Gazoobee (Post 4272705)
An interesting angle on the controversy, but the author misrepresents things when he/she refers to this as a "political cause" that Eich is supporting as a "private citizen" which implies that it's just a personal opinion of his similar to whether taxes should be higher or lower.
I believe you're referring to The Atlantic's writer.

Quote
Conor Friedersdorf, proponent of gay marriage wrote in <a href="http://macnn.com/rd/307352==http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/mozillas-gay-marriage-litmus-test-violates-liberal-values/360156/" rel='nofollow'><em>The Atlantic</em></a> that "Calls for his ouster were premised on the notion that all support for Proposition 8 was hateful, and that a CEO should be judged not just by his or her conduct in the professional realm, but also by political causes he or she supports as a private citizen." Friedersdorf added that "If that attitude spreads, it will damage our society."
 
rtamesis Apr 5, 2014 05:49 PM
McCarthy and like minded people went after the most prominent people based on their positions in society and government whom he thought were communist sympathizers. He would have had a field day with his witch hunts going after ordinary citizens if Facebook and Google were available back then. It wasn't right to dos so back then and it isn't right today either no matter which side in the political spectrum does the witch hunting.
 
Spheric Harlot Apr 5, 2014 06:00 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by rtamesis (Post 4272715)
McCarthy and like minded people went after the most prominent people based on their positions in society and government whom he thought were communist sympathizers. He would have had a field day with his witch hunts going after ordinary citizens if Facebook and Google were available back then. It wasn't right to dos so back then and it isn't right today either no matter which side in the political spectrum does the witch hunting.
Nobody's doing "witch-hunting".

People have the right to say "Hey, this company just hired a CEO who's a complete asshole. Don't support them." I reserve the right to not support assholes.
 
rtamesis Apr 5, 2014 09:53 PM
And that's fine to do so. This is supposed to be a free country with freedom of speech, but to use what political organization you donated to on your own free time and as a private citizen as a basis of forcing a termination of your employment is wrong. What if some group decided to try to make your employer fire you on the basis of who you voted for in the last election?
 
tindrum Apr 6, 2014 12:26 AM
At the time of the Prop. 8 vote in California, Obama was against same-sex marriage, too.

http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/will-obamas-support-of-gay-marriage-help-him-politically

I, a voter in California, voted for Prop. 8, and the bill passed with 52% support of voters. Should more than half of Californians be fired? Or just the "important" people who dare to speak their minds or actively support a position with money?

Those who think sacking this guy is a great thing really need to examine their priorities. Do people really want a society where discussion is quashed, where free speech is tolerated only if one agrees with a vocal (and vindictive) minority?

If an individual cannot accept that heterosexual marriage represents a norm that should be reenforced by society, that individual should try to respect that other people _do_ believe that. In California, same-sex couples had the exact same legal rights and standing as heterosexual couples, but were not entitled to use the legal term of being "married".

The fact that the pro gay marriage side has been more vindictive and has selectively excoriated people who differ from them doesn't make their case well, it just makes their view the less costly one for normal, quiet people to acquiesce to.
--
Daniel Henderson
(name included intentionally so the _real_ haters can hate)
 
Spheric Harlot Apr 6, 2014 12:47 AM
No, not half of Californians should be fired. By the tiny minority who was driven to vote in favor needs to be watched closely, and the huge majority who didn't see the threat to freedom and DIDN'T VOTE needs to be slapped hard and long against the head.

Quote, Originally Posted by rtamesis (Post 4272738)
And that's fine to do so. This is supposed to be a free country with freedom of speech, but to use what political organization you donated to on your own free time and as a private citizen as a basis of forcing a termination of your employment is wrong. What if some group decided to try to make your employer fire you on the basis of who you voted for in the last election?
This happens all the time when people assume positions of power and responsibility. I would expect just this. When people are raised to leadership status, they themselves become in some ways representative of the company they work for. A company needs to consider whether they want somebody with controversial or questionable views to represent them in the public eye. How is this not completely obvious and utterly banal?

I'm self-employed, btw, and I don't work for racists and bigots.
 
Charles Martin Apr 6, 2014 01:22 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by tindrum (Post 4272743)
At the time of the Prop. 8 vote in California, Obama was against same-sex marriage, too.
This is half-true. Obama was already on the record as being in favor of civil unions, and changing the law to provide exactly the same rights and privileges as heterosexual married couples -- but once he saw that it was still going to be treated as second-class by people like, well, you ... he decided to support marriage equality. Or, if you prefer, he correctly bet that the public's position on this issue would evolve as it has, savvy cynical politician that he is. Either way, he was not against marriage equality per se at the time.

Quote
I, a voter in California, voted for Prop. 8, and the bill passed with 52% support of voters.
And was overturned because it was unconstitutional. Hardly the first time Americans (or even Californians) ignorant of the Constitution have voted for something that violated it, and its not the first nor the last time a court overturned such decisions. You might want to ask your mom or grandmother who gave her the right to vote, for example. ISTR a lot of white voters trying to make segregation the law of the land not all that long ago ... in fact, voters very often vote against their own self-interests and against American values and the Constitution -- see Arizona among other places for plenty of examples.

Quote
Those who think sacking this guy is a great thing really need to examine their priorities.
I think they did -- and decided that someone who is anti-equality and anti-human rights is not a good fit for the CEO of a publicly-traded company. To me, that's a fantastic message to send. The free market at its finest.

Quote
Do people really want a society where discussion is quashed, where free speech is tolerated only if one agrees with a vocal (and vindictive) minority?
I have seen no "quashing" of discussion or free speech, even in this forum far less in the United States. Here you are, proclaiming yourself a homophobe who doesn't mind violating the equal-protection clause and other parts of the US Constitution to discriminate against people you don't like, and is anyone oppressing you or banning you or firing you from your job? Nope. As long as you keep it civil (as you have done, thank you), you're more than welcome to express that view here and indeed anywhere. But with free speech comes accountability for your words and deeds, or did you not know that?

Challenging or questioning your views and actions is not the same thing as "quashing" your "rights." It's a reminder that free speech is free for everyone, including those who don't agree with you.

Quote
If an individual cannot accept that heterosexual marriage represents a norm that should be reenforced by society, that individual should try to respect that other people _do_ believe that.
"Norm." Interesting word choice. A few decades ago, it was the "norm" for whites and blacks to be segregated (and not allowed to marry, heaven forbid) in the US. Do I take it that whatever is the "norm" at a given point in time is okay with you because its "traditional?" Like slavery was? Lynching? Gay-bashing? Should Jews "keep it to themselves" because Christians are the "norm?" Should handicapped people just learn to drag themselves up and down stairs because able-bodied people are the "norm?"

Or has society evolved over time -- and the "norm" changes so that those things are no longer considered (publicly, at least) acceptable for, say, a CEO of a publicly-traded company to believe? Looking back even just the past century, wouldn't you agree that a LOT of things that used to be fine to do or espouse are no longer acceptable? And wouldn't you agree that when those things were socially accepted, that the justification of said behaviour was that it was "traditional?"

And speaking of heterosexual marriage, do you refer to arranged marriages? Fathers bartering for economic gain by marrying their daughters off to higher-class members of society? Multiple wives? These were all "norms" at one point or another, some are still practiced *today* in some places. Your Prop H8 concept of "heterosexual marriage" is actually, historically speaking, about as new an idea as the concept that children should not work in factories. Things have changed, and they keep changing.

Quote
In California, same-sex couples had the exact same legal rights and standing as heterosexual couples
This is flat-out not true. Even in parts of the state where same-sex marriages were allowed, the marriage was not recognized outside of those places, and the rights and privileges that married couples have over single people or unmarried couples (over 1,100 such rights and privileges) did not apply:

https://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/...arried-couples

30+ Examples of Heterosexual Privilege

Quote
The fact that anti-gay bigots have vindictively fired, harassed with impunity, beaten and killed gay people for the sole "crime" of being gay, and selectively excoriated people who differ from them for centuries in this country
There, fixed your statement for you. Hint: challenging you to rationalize your beliefs and why they should be imposed on others is not "oppression." It's the very opposite. You're just not used to it.

Quote
just makes their view the less costly one for normal, quiet people to acquiesce to.
Who, in your definition (apart from heterosexuals) is "normal?" Are left-handed people "normal?" Democrats? Left-handed Democrats? How about atheists? People who eat shellfish? Heterosexual racists, are they okay? Can you clarify this, and upon what authority you claim to know what "normal" is?

As for "quiet," isn't that the description the neighbours always give on the TV news?
 
Mike Wuerthele Apr 6, 2014 10:22 AM
While the Eich thing can be viewed a number of different ways, it does point out the -isms in silicon valley. I'm 44. Famously, Zuckerberg called younger people smarter than old ones. There are entire staffing agencies who want people who's best work is ahead of them (not behind, and they call this specifically out). I don't see a big hue and cry about this? Why not? How is this NOT a human rights issue, but gay marriage is?

(to be clear, I don't care who marries who. Dig humping trees? Go ahead and marry it.)

It can be argued that Silicon Valley doesn't care for poor people also. If you have a popular -ism, like ageism, than you're fine. If not so much, then you're driven out of town, Eich-style. While I understand that Eich did make this donation, even six years ago was a different climate.

Eich DID take corrective actions, he DID say that he'd lead the company with the values it has in mind, but STILL got hammered for it. Did anybody ask him WHY he made the donation? Nope.

Politicians have survived more, and they "lead" WAY more people.

Why didn't Eich?
 
tindrum Apr 6, 2014 03:02 PM
""At the time of the Prop. 8 vote in California, Obama was against same-sex marriage, too.""

"This is half-true. Obama was already on the record as being in favor of civil unions..."

Your response is a whole lie. The vote was about same-sex marriage. Obama's stated opinion at that time was in agreement with Prop. 8's purpose. California had, at that time, civil unions. The vote did not change civil unions in any way. What Eich's money went to was to support a view Obama held. That Obama's position later changed is not relevant to the point made, and it is false so call my claim a half-truth.

""And was overturned because it was unconstitutional.""
I understand the argument for why Prop. 8 was struck down; the equal protection clause. Another judge, and the decision might have gone a different way. Other states have similar laws and statutes which stand. Still, in California, citizens are allowed to add laws to the state constitution.

The court reviews them. The court has the final say, but should a person be forced out of his job because he did not properly guess the direction of a court decision to come?

""I have seen no "quashing" of discussion or free speech""
Obviously, the protest is about this man's speech, not his work for Mozilla. The message is clear: pick a position we (activists) don't like and you will lose your livelihood. Clearly, a message about speech is being sent, namely, don't engage in the wrong kind of "free speech" or you will be destroyed. This is, indirectly, quashing, plain and simple. Take down a few big targets and few, if any, others, will stick their necks out.

I did not declare myself a "homophobe." You put that label on me. I believe that unions between gay couples should not use a word that has had a simple and obvious meaning for all time previous, and has only recently been applied to same-sex couples.

A norm is a preferred behavior. While I don't care if most people smoke weed, I certainly don't encourage it. I don't want the pilot or the surgeon getting high often or on the job. Likewise, I believe that opposite sex couples, ceteris paribus, are the best type of couple for rearing children of either sex. I believe that the word 'marriage' should be reserved, as it has through antiquity, for this arrangement of sex only: a man and a woman. Let other terms apply. What's in a name, right?

I know you will bring up that not all marriages are for children. Still, my belief in a normative situation still applies.

I know you will say that there are abusive hetero parents and wonderful gay parents. That is true. I stipulated "ceteris paribus", all else being equal. As such, I believe that a hetero couple should be allowed exclusive use of the word "married" when they enter into such a union, and that society will be harmed by a muddying and confusion about what is normal.

No, your shopping list of odd exceptions doesn't need to be answered point by point. I think most readers will be able to distinguish the difference, even if they think my difference is as trivial as left-handedness.

As far as the rest of your straw-man arguments, where you inaccurately restate my arguments to make them look absurd, I don't have time to respond to each.

I think it's unfortunate that a view that is commonly held can get a man good at his job fired. I think he was chosen to make an example to others: keep your mouth shut or the sharks will feed on you too.

Eventually, perhaps, one of your opinions will be on the other side of mob popularity. Before that day, please read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...
 
Spheric Harlot Apr 6, 2014 03:09 PM
He who quotes Niemeyer should be DAMN sure he's not on the side discriminating against a minority.

That's just disgraceful.

Thankfully, the majority of Americans (and Californians) agree. Why the majority didn't actually vote on Prop. 8 is anybody's guess, but it's usually activists who get motivated by fear to vote on sensitive issues. Nobody sane expected the proposition to go through.
 
tindrum Apr 6, 2014 03:14 PM
Spheric Harlot, the "tiny minority" you wish to surveil is actually 52% of Californians who voted. Of course, many people did not cast ballots, but California is the most populous state. The number of people you think needs to be "watched closely" is larger than the population of the state of Washington, Massachusetts, Arizona, Indiana, Tennessee, Missouri, Maryland, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Colorado, Alabama, South Carolina, Louisiana, Kentucky, Oregon, Oklahoma, Connecticut, Iowa, Mississippi, Arkansas, Utah, Kansas, Nevada, New Mexico, Nebraska, West Virginia, Idaho, Hawaii, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Montana, Delaware, South Dakota, Alaska, North Dakota,Vermont or Wyoming. Yes, 7 million people voted _for_ Prop. 8, not just _in_ that election.

So, free speech is bad, mass surveillance is good, in your hastily penned opinion. I hope you are just being hyperbolic.
 
tindrum Apr 6, 2014 03:25 PM
So, the minority of one man doesn't matter?

Spare the moral outrage for when it's appropriate. The man was attacked, nailed down, fired for a view commonly held. Many think this is fine behavior. His savaging is the antithesis of civil behavior.

If you have read the bill, it is about the definition of one word, and the legal meaning of it. The meaning it had carried forever was being codified. That is all. It was not about discrimination.

The response, on the other hand, does seem to be causing a lot of collateral, and personal, damage.
 
Spheric Harlot Apr 6, 2014 03:26 PM
You're right: it wasn't a "tiny minority" that insisted on establishing minority discrimination in violation of the Constitution. All the more worrisome that so many people apparently fail to grasp the basic rights and protections afforded to the people by the state.

Thankfully, there are mechanisms in place to protect minorities from the mob rule of direct democracy.
 
tindrum Apr 6, 2014 03:34 PM
Spheric Harlot, do you stand by your statement that those of us, including me, who voted for Prop. 8 need to be "watched closely"?
 
The Vicar Apr 6, 2014 03:45 PM
@rtamesis:

Um, McCarthy tried to use government powers to lock up people &mdash; and later admitted that he made up all of his charges. (The famous "list" was actually a laundry list.)

The government isn't involved in this at all. If you like free markets and capitalism, you ought to be THRILLED at this: hey, a company is reading the public reaction to having installed a bigot as CEO, and got rid of him. That's how the "free market" is supposed to regulate corporate behavior &mdash; ask any Republican "thinker".

Of course, since people like you don't actually have a thought in your head, but merely prejudices, all you see is "someone lost a job for having an opinion which people I hate disagree with" &mdash; ultimately, that's what this boils down to; gay marriage isn't protested by the right because they actually believe their own rhetoric, they just perceive gay rights as a left issue and have a knee-jerk reaction. (It's like Obama: he's actually deeply conservative, further to the right than Reagan on almost every issue, but the right wing can't stand a black man in the White House so they go insane about it.)
 
Chongo Apr 6, 2014 03:47 PM
Here's an article on Eich's "resignation" and it affect on other cases.

Mozilla, Brendan Eich, and the HHS Mandates | CatholicVote.org
Quote
Mozilla, Brendan Eich, and the HHS Mandates
By Carson Holloway

Last week Brendan Eich was forced to step down as CEO of Mozilla Corporation because of complaints that, among other things, he had given a contribution to support Proposition 8–the amendment to the California Constitution defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. These developments have occasioned a debated about whether it was a good or bad thing that Eich had to resign.

One view has it that the episode illustrates a disturbing illiberality and vengefulness on the part of some proponents of same-sex marriage. This is the view of many conservatives, but also of liberal (and gay) blogger Andrew Sullivan.

The opposite view–the extreme left view–defends the forcing out of Eich on the grounds that his views are evil and retrograde and people like him should not be in high status positions. People who make this argument are doing everything they can to confirm the critique made by the critics mentioned in the previous paragraph.

I am most interested in a middle position I have seen defended. This view holds that it was proper to seek Eich’s removal just because his views don’t fit with the values of the Mozilla community. According to this perspective, the Mozilla Corporation does not exist only to make money but to embody certain values, and since many thought Eich did not share those values, they could properly ask him to leave.

I don’t know enough about Mozilla to know whether this argument is fully persuasive, but what really interests me in it is the principle it presupposes. It presupposes that a corporation might have a kind of ethical identity, derived from the ethical intentions of the people who constitute it.

That makes a lot of sense to me. A corporation is not just an abstraction but is made up of human individuals who have decided to cooperate with a view to some common good. Here’s the point: If this is true of Mozilla, wouldn’t it also be true, say, of Catholic hospitals and universities, which are set up not just to provide health care or education, but to do so according to Catholic standards? And if it is true, wouldn’t these institutions have a point in saying that they have an interest in not providing forms of health care coverage that they find immoral?
 
fmlogue Apr 6, 2014 05:02 PM
Where were the "conservative" free speech defenders when the Dixie Chicks tried to exercise their free speech rights?
 
fmlogue Apr 6, 2014 05:03 PM
Where were the "conservative" free speech defenders when the Dixie Chicks tried to exercise their free speech rights?
 
YangZone Apr 6, 2014 05:40 PM
To express support for discrimination against any innocent "segment" of society is asking for trouble in the 21st century. It is no different from from expressing support for discrimination against any other innocent group like say, Jews or Irish etc. Just because this bigotry toward homosexuals is widespread does not justify attempting to sanction such discrimination. "Belief" is not only indefensible but reprehensible - thus Mr Eich's predicament.
 
Spheric Harlot Apr 6, 2014 06:25 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by tindrum (Post 4272794)
Spheric Harlot, do you stand by your statement that those of us, including me, who voted for Prop. 8 need to be "watched closely"?
I think any group that advocates active discrimination of a minority in a democracy should expect to be watched closely.
 
aristotles Apr 7, 2014 12:44 AM
Lovely. My comment got erased. But ironically I see many extremely hateful and even threatening comments by other members representing an opposing viewpoint remain. Interesting. Thank you for helping to prove my point.

Apparently it is ok to spread hate if you are of a particular segment of society and it appears to no be ok to point out hypocrisy of others.

Fine, run this site however you wish. I wear my persecution has a badge of honour.
 
Spheric Harlot Apr 7, 2014 02:24 AM
Who's spreading hate?
 
Makosuke Apr 7, 2014 06:47 AM
Personally, I find the conservative sites that are actively banning Firefox now mildly amusing, since what they're doing is pushing people to use either Chrome, IE, or Safari.

Which is funny because Google, Microsoft, and Apple are all notable for their LGBT-friendly policies (yes, even MS). All three companies lobbied the supreme court in the recent decision that overturned California's Prop 8, Apple and Google were both actively against Prop 8 when it was on the ballot, and for MS's part both of the previous CEOs donated considerable sums of money to a Washington state marriage equality campaign.
 
Chongo Apr 7, 2014 07:21 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot (Post 4272835)
Who's spreading hate?
Bill Maher says it's the "Gay Mafia"
Bill Maher: "There Is A Gay Mafia -- If You Cross Them, You Do Get Whacked" | Video | RealClearPolitics
Quote
MAHER: What do you think about the Mozilla CEO having to step down over his donation to a pro-Proposition 8 group.

The Mozilla -- which I'm wearing right now, by the way. I didn't know what Mozilla was. I saw it on my computer, but -- it's Firefix, right? It's the browser.

So this guy apparently does not want gay people to get married and he had to step down. What do you think of that, the question asks.

FMR. REP. TOM DAVIS (R-VA): Because he gave $1,000 eight years ago and it's come back to haunt him.

CARRIE SHEFFIELD, FORBES: Well, and he gave it when President Obama was still against gay marriage. So, I don't think it's very fair.

MAHER: Good point. Also, I think there is a gay mafia. I think if you cross them, you do get whacked.
 
Mike Wuerthele Apr 7, 2014 07:50 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by aristotles (Post 4272830)
Lovely. My comment got erased. But ironically I see many extremely hateful and even threatening comments by other members representing an opposing viewpoint remain. Interesting. Thank you for helping to prove my point.

Apparently it is ok to spread hate if you are of a particular segment of society and it appears to no be ok to point out hypocrisy of others.

Fine, run this site however you wish. I wear my persecution has a badge of honour.
Your completely irrelevant point, hauling the Nazis in? Yeah, it got deleted.

I wrote the original article, I didn't delete your post, but would have if I saw it first. Your post was clearly against our rules.

You want to discuss, fine. Discuss, but do so as a reasonable human being. What's going on here isn't genocide in any way. Nobody's persecuting you here, some just don't agree with you.
 
And.reg Apr 7, 2014 08:43 AM
Nice to see the Tech News forum become the new placeholder for sociopolitical debate.

Moving on...
 
Spheric Harlot Apr 7, 2014 11:17 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by Chongo (Post 4272845)
In this thread, I mean? I was responding to aristotles' claim.

Also, FWIW, getting "whacked" by a "Gay Mafia" that Bill Maher thinks exists sure beats getting lynched by real-life rednecks for being gay, don't it.
 
driven Apr 18, 2014 09:30 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by aviamquepasa (Post 4272672)
and, by the way, we NEED firefox
For what?

Between Safari and Chrome, I'm pretty much covered. (Safari being my #1 choice, Chrome for everything non-apple.) Both sync my bookmarks and function as I would expect. I don't think I've even spun up Firefox in over a year.
 
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:11 AM.

Copyright © 2005-2007 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2