Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Mozilla Businesses Politics

Brendan Eich Steps Down As Mozilla CEO 1746

Posted by timothy
from the but-a-decade-as-cto-is-fine dept.
New submitter matafagafo (1343219) writes with this news, straight from the Mozilla blog, which comes in the wake of controversy over Brendan Eich's polticial views (in particular, his support for California's Proposition 8, which would have reversed a decision legalizing same-sex marriage within the state). and how they would reflect on the organization : "Brendan Eich has chosen to step down from his role as CEO. He's made this decision for Mozilla and our community. Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech. 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 ..."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Brendan Eich Steps Down As Mozilla CEO

Comments Filter:
  • by samantha (68231) * on Thursday April 03, 2014 @02:50PM (#46652373) Homepage

    I am a lesbian and I still think hounding Eich for standing for Prop. 8 and threatening to boycott a cornerstone of the internet and internet development if he was CEO of the Mozilla foundation is complete and utter intolerant bullshit. I am very disappointed with people doing such things and disappointed he caved to such.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 03, 2014 @02:53PM (#46652413)

    I'm not sure how we are supposed to take this. I guess the Thought Police have won another round. I've never met the guy and don't know much about him but it seems like he was harpooned for personal beliefs (that clearly match up with many other people based on the vote). Are we really this much against differing viewpoints? Against religious freedom?

    Wow America. Step back and get a grip.

  • by Kaenneth (82978) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @02:53PM (#46652415) Homepage Journal

    Same, I disagree with him, but supporting freedom of speech is bigger than any one issue.

  • by TheGratefulNet (143330) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @02:53PM (#46652423)

    complete and utter intolerant bullshit.

    its not wrong to be intolerant of intolerance.

    no one in modern times (in a western world) would think its ok to underpay women just because they are women. no one would think its ok to pay less based on skin color. why is it 'just another way to think' when its about giving (or more accurately, denying) equal rights to same-sex couples?

    its wrong to deny people basic rights based entirely on religion,.

    I feel happy that people have pushed such a backward thinking person out of a position of high power. good for mankind! yay! there's still some hope for us, yet.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 03, 2014 @02:56PM (#46652455)

    I wonder if people would react this way to the opposite point of view, if an LGBT person donated to an anti-prop 8 campaign ... should they be forced to resign?

    This is sad... I for one will be uninstalling Mozilla from all of my computers, and begin to argue that all my friends move away from the browser.

  • by DaHat (247651) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @02:57PM (#46652457) Homepage

    its not wrong to be intolerant of intolerance.

    Then at least acknowledge that the boycott push was an act of active and outright bigotry when Eich had (past tense) done something that some might see as intolerant, the response to him was far far worse than anything he'd done... and worse sets a chilling prescient for future attacks on those who dare to hold an opposing view.

  • by DaHat (247651) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @02:58PM (#46652481) Homepage

    Didn't you get the memo? Your right to protest or have a contradictory view is only protected if it is accepted by a big enough mob or those in power.

    Disagree? The IRS will be auditing you shortly...

  • by im_thatoneguy (819432) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @02:58PM (#46652487)

    What about my freedom of speech to not donate to an organization headed by someone with whom I disagree?

    What about the freedom of hundreds of employees to feel uncomfortable working for someone who is advocating against you? What about the freedom of workers to quit and find new companies where they are more welcome?

    Freedom goes both ways. In this instance it's one CEO or thousands of users and employees.

  • by DaMP12000 (710387) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @02:58PM (#46652493)
    Freedom of speech does not mean free from consequences. Freedom of speech does not mean unconditional support. It means that you have the right to say what you want, and that you should not be persecuted for it.
    Now, as consumers of a product, it is our right to not use/buy the product to not financially support acts that go against our beliefs and moral stances (just like we choose to buy organic, or buy american, or buy fair trade, etc.)
  • by MickyTheIdiot (1032226) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @03:00PM (#46652517) Homepage Journal

    I really don't know what Eich's particular case was, so this doesn't necessarily apply to this specific situation, but when a person progresses from talking about how gays are horrible and moves to working to actively take rights away or make them second class citizens in some legal sense then it ceases to become a freedom of speech issue.

    I think that's a clear point so many people miss. Exercising freedom of religion or freedom of speech doesn't go as far as taking rights away from others. The saying I was taught was "the right of your fist end at the tip of my nose."

    The main argument for the current idiotic spate of anti-gay bills is that their rights entitle them to take rights away from others. It's a situation that these people themselves would never tolerate if the situation were reversed.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 03, 2014 @03:01PM (#46652533)

    Same, I disagree with him, but supporting freedom of speech is bigger than any one issue.

    Why do so many confuse freedom of speech with freedom from criticism?

  • by vux984 (928602) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @03:01PM (#46652535)

    I am a lesbian and I still think hounding Eich for standing for Prop. 8 and threatening to boycott a cornerstone of the internet and internet development if he was CEO of the Mozilla foundation is complete and utter intolerant bullshit.

    So where do you draw the line?

    Lets just Godwin it right off the bat and get it over with; if he were openly a Nazi, funding white supremacy, attacking the jews and blacks right to own property etc... everyone at Mozilla should just show up to work because its no business of theirs what their boss does off the clock? All Mozilla's customers should just keep using the software, because its no business of theirs?

    The reality is that what he stands for offended a lot of people.

    The CEO is the face of the company.

      If you are seriously disappointed that it culminated in people non-violently making it heard that they did not wish to work for this guy, or support a company this guy was the head of then I have to say I'm disappointed in YOU.

    The world needs more of this not less.

  • by Ralph Wiggam (22354) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @03:01PM (#46652543) Homepage

    That's an excellent comparison....as long as you know absolutely nothing about Joe McCarthy.

  • by mikelieman (35628) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @03:02PM (#46652553) Homepage

    Erlich's "religious freedom" ends at the perimeter of his own self.

    The moment he tried to apply his cognitive framing TO OTHER PEOPLE, he went off the rails.

    If he contributed to islamic organizations opposing freedom of women to drive or appear in public without hajib, would that be OK?

  • by MightyMartian (840721) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @03:02PM (#46652555) Journal

    I'm not clear. When did freedom of speech extend to the operations of a private business?

    In a way, this is no different than being fired for making embarrassing statements on Twitter. You have your right to speak your mind, what you don't have the right to do is force the rest of the world to ignore what you've said.

  • Hmm (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 03, 2014 @03:02PM (#46652559)

    Clearly someone doesn't quite get it.

  • by blueturffan (867705) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @03:04PM (#46652575)

    its not wrong to be intolerant of intolerance.

    Thank you for saying this. I've been turning the other cheek for far too long. I'm tired of being tolerant of those that are intolerant of my deeply-held religious convictions. I'm out for retribution now. There will be BLOODSHED TONIGHT!

    I feel happy that people have pushed such a backward thinking person out of a position of high power. good for mankind! yay! there's still some hope for us, yet.

    Oh...I see, your whole "intolerant of intolerance" only applies to those you happen to agree with. Bummer.

  • by DaHat (247651) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @03:04PM (#46652587) Homepage

    ...Keep your political views well hidden

    How well hidden is enough?

    Clearly donations are out as the pro-Prop 8 donor list was leaked/stolen which is part of the reason for this bigotry of differing opinions.

    Even filling in the oval on the ballot could come back and haunt you depending on how your ballot is treated and if it can be linked to you (here in Washington State, it's a trivial matter)).

    you plan to head up an organisation that is sensitive as to how it is perceived by a cross-section of society.

    I don't know about you, I don't know which groups I might be heading in 6 years, or 60 for that matter... best to just stop voting, donating money or having opinions that someone somewhere might find offensive... unless that too is considered offensive.

  • by im_thatoneguy (819432) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @03:04PM (#46652591)

    The Thought Police have been around for all of time. Think it's ok to molest small children? Expect the Thought police to ostracize you. Support stripping the rights of your fellow citizens? Here comes the "thought police". Give money to the KKK, here come the "thought police".

    You're free to practice your religion. Your religion is free to say that gay people are gross. Your religion is free to say that it's good to sacrifice virgins over an alter. We're all free to call you crazy wackos. Freedom goes both way bucko.

    Crying "religious freedom" is like running up, kicking someone in the shins and then yelling "No backsies, religious freedom!" Believe whatever you want, but trying to strip rights from your fellow citizens isn't a "belief" that's action. That's an assault on their rights.

  • by SocietyoftheFist (316444) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @03:04PM (#46652595)

    I feel bad for him, it is only because of his public position that this is an issue. If you dig deep enough, none of us should keep our jobs.

  • Re:gay country (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 03, 2014 @03:04PM (#46652599)
    haha, eich was lynched. I guess gay people are as intolerant as homophobes.
  • by blueturffan (867705) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @03:06PM (#46652623)

    its wrong to deny people basic rights based entirely on religion

    Like denying someone the right to remain in a job based on their religious beliefs?

  • by assertation (1255714) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @03:06PM (#46652625)

    His freedom of speech wasn't taken away. He can still say what he wants and contributes to the causes he wants. It is a matter of other people exercising their freedom to do the same and choose a browser for any reason they prefer.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 03, 2014 @03:07PM (#46652635)

    President Obama's view on same sex marriage were aligned in Prop 8 and the Mozilla CEO. Do you not remember this?

    This whole thing is just getting thought-police creepy. There's a huge group of folks out there that want to shut down any type of dissent, from global warming to same-sex marriage. Not healthy.

  • by Kaenneth (82978) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @03:08PM (#46652641) Homepage Journal

    I'm not willing to vilify someone for voting.

  • by vux984 (928602) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @03:09PM (#46652665)

    If you dig deep enough, none of us should keep our jobs.

    Nobody is going to boycott IBM, and no employees are going to refuse to come into work because Joe in accounting tells racist jokes at family gatherings.

    If the CEO did it on twitter, that would be entirely different, and you know it. Even if it was his 'personal' twitter account.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 03, 2014 @03:09PM (#46652675)

    If they're uncomfortable, they're being childish. For one thing, diversity means being around people who disagree with you. And as long as they're not directly being a dick to you, you're supposed to exhibit some degree of tolerance, especially in the workplace.

    Second, it's not like the man is a skin-head. He donated $1,000 to a Prop 8 fund. Maybe the guy is a Mormon. I dunno.

    What if he was a communist party member? Shouldn't the 100s of millions of deaths directly attributable to the rise of communist party rule be a little more cause for concern then whether states should accept homosexual marriages? Of course not... that would require some rational thought and reflection. Or, maybe, I dunno... supporting a political party or campaign doesn't mean your motives are nefarious and harmful (even though their effect might cause harm in actuality).

  • by MickyTheIdiot (1032226) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @03:09PM (#46652679) Homepage Journal

    Bigotry? Really?

    They didn't think someone that contributed to something that they considered anti-human rights should be the head of an open source organization and they voted with their feet. They didn't go to a legislature and say that Eich and all the other people that gave to this cause should have rights taken away. That's what the anti-gay factions are doing at the moment as they keep losing ground on this issue.

  • by Desler (1608317) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @03:09PM (#46652681)

    You mean like how the right wingers boycotts TV/radio shows/movies and threaten sponsors when something is done that they don't like? What's good for the goose and all that jazz.

  • by meta-monkey (321000) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @03:11PM (#46652693) Journal

    It's not that simple. Marriage is not a right. For anyone. It's a social construct. You can't engage in the "active suppression of other people's rights" when there is no right involved.

    I see both sides of the issue have valid arguments, but booting somebody out of an organization for having a different political opinion does not speak of a "culture of openness." It's open and inclusive until you vote in a way we don't like. Wow.

  • by Desler (1608317) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @03:11PM (#46652717)

    He did more than just vote.

  • by Wdomburg (141264) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @03:12PM (#46652735)

    If Eich is a "shitty person" for his position in 2008, than so is Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Bill Cliton, Bill Richardson, Harry Reid, John Edwards (okay ... I'll give you that one)...

  • by DaHat (247651) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @03:13PM (#46652745) Homepage

    Would you call it "just an opposing view" if it were something else?

    Unlike same sex marriage proponents who call it a 'right' that they are being 'denied'... they do not face criminal prosecution for them living their lives within the current system.

    I however am in a community that has politicians from time to time trying to crack down on, even criminalizing previously legal activity or objects which centuries of legal precedent has codified as an explicit right that shall not be infringed.

    So while I am a much bigger target for much more hostile politicians... yes, I call it 'just an opposing view' and work to defeat them at the ballot box every 2-4 years as well as in-between.

    What if he had said, "blacks don't deserve the right to vote"?

    When?

    *If* he'd said it in the 1840's... that'd be a pretty common view and chances are I wouldn't care much... but then there would also be the issue of how I would know he said it.

    *If* he said that last week... I'd put him in the same category I do the KKK, Democrat party and NAMBLA... groups I am not going to do any business with... but not waste my time to advertise that fact, figuring they will do a good enough job of it themselves.

  • by JOrgePeixoto (853808) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @03:13PM (#46652763) Journal

    People should be free to engage in politics according to their conviction, without punishment or reward. The ballot is secret for a reason.

    Political donations are publicised as a check against a few billionaires distorting the playing field. To see how much money influenced the election. It was not meant to be a tool for personal retribution.

    Freedom of political activism doesn't cease to apply when it is about rights. Imagine if this happened in other controversies about rights:
    Employer 1: "Oh, you are pro-choice? You want to deny unborn children the right to life. Fired!"
    Employer 2: "Oh, you are pro-life? You want to deny women the right to self-determination. Fired!"
    Employer 3: "Oh, you support the death penalty? You want to deny felons the right to life. Fired!"

    This is wrong. People must never be demoted because of political activism they do privatly, not using the company brand, and not related to the company mission.

  • by im_thatoneguy (819432) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @03:14PM (#46652767)

    You're free as an *employer* to say whatever you want. And your employees are free to leave and your customers are free to stop doing business with you.

  • Re:WTF? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by oh_my_080980980 (773867) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @03:14PM (#46652769)
    Yeah because we need more CEOs crusading to take away the rights of Americans.....
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 03, 2014 @03:16PM (#46652797)

    Being able to appear in public and being entitled to not be a slave to their husbands is a basic human rights. Getting a government stamp on a piece of paper and getting tax breaks aren't basic human rights.

  • by DaHat (247651) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @03:16PM (#46652807) Homepage

    Denying rights isn't worse? Wow.

    Do you really want to play that game?

    His $1000 donation did not deny anyone anything, it did however assist an organization which could be seen to try to 'deny rights'... that group and it's side lost.

    Instead, we have a group of sour winners lashing out against not only those who lost, but the (previous) supporters of those who lost, even seeking to deny them the rights.

    Based on the previous decisions of the Mozilla board, based on his work history, Eich had every right to be CEO of the foundation... a right that he has now been stripped of based on this mob mentality.

  • by mi (197448) <slashdot-2014@virtual-estates.net> on Thursday April 03, 2014 @03:18PM (#46652863) Homepage

    A majority of people in modern-day America work for corporate entities of some kind. If you argue that free speech should only be protected against the government and not against employers, then you are in effect saying that a majority of people shouldn't have any free speech protections at all.

    It has nothing to do with where you work. The First Amendment only defends one from government punishing your speech. You can still boycott — and be boycotted — by non-governmental enterprises and individuals. Indeed, when the Amendment was written, the percentage of people working for private sector was much higher than today.

    I am disgusted with the Illiberals' persecution of the supporters of the Prop 8, but I don't deny their right to do it... I do wish, the actual Liberals were as effective, though... Why, for example, is one getting into all sorts of trouble for opposing — not gay sex — gay marriage, but, for example, glamorizing Che Guevara is deemed perfectly acceptable?

  • by pecosdave (536896) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @03:19PM (#46652873) Homepage Journal

    Or how the left keeps threatening/trying to bring back the "Fairness Doctrine" because they don't like the fact AM Radio is dominated by right wingers?

  • by im_thatoneguy (819432) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @03:19PM (#46652879)

    And as long as they're not directly being a dick to you, you're supposed to exhibit some degree of tolerance, especially in the workplace.

    I would say that if you are Gay and would like to receive the government benefits associated with a marriage then giving $1,000 to stopping you would fall into the category of "Being a dick to you".

    Second, it's not like the man is a skin-head.

    Skinheads think blacks are inferior and bad for society.
    Homophobes think gays are inferior and bad for society.

    So yes it is like he's a skin-head.

  • by Microlith (54737) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @03:19PM (#46652883)

    I see you're pushing this nonsensical argument over and over again.

    the boycott push was an act of active and outright bigotry

    It's not bigotry. It's a boycott against what is tantamount to hypocrisy.

    the response to him was far far worse than anything he'd done

    Was it? He doesn't get to be CEO of Mozilla. Whereas he publicly supported a push for an amendment that maligned a section of society and donated to a politician who was all about maligning people he disliked.

    and worse sets a chilling prescient for future attacks on those who dare to hold an opposing view.

    No, it says that organizations like Mozilla, that pride themselves in being very socially liberal and freedom/privacy focused should look more closely at the people they're thinking of giving the very public title of CEO, and not pick people with very public stances that are antithetical to that of the organization.

  • by radish (98371) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @03:21PM (#46652919) Homepage

    He wasn't fired, he chose to resign as it was in the best interests of Mozilla. As CEO he was the figurehead of the company, and he simply cannot distinguish his private beliefs from those of the company in the same way as a rank-and-file employee can. No one cared that he worked at Mozilla - they cared that he _led_ Mozilla.

  • by hydrofix (1253498) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @03:22PM (#46652951)
    You seem to have misunderstood the very core tenet of freedom of speech. Eich has full right to his opinion. The protests were not about him having an opinion. The protests were about the content of that opinion. What do you think people should have done instead? Ignore his views?
  • by bhcompy (1877290) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @03:24PM (#46652983)
    Well, the problem isn't so much the freedom as the principle. People want to do something that a huge number of people consider controversial. Someone uses their democratic right and votes against it. A different group of people publicly lynch that someone for taking an opposing view. It's unhealthy to society for people who hold opposing views to be crucified. It's uncivil and counter-productive.
  • Blah (Score:4, Insightful)

    by benjfowler (239527) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @03:24PM (#46652993)

    I've got absolutely no time for poofter bashers.

    But the torches-and-pitchforks brigade really overdid it this time.

    Well, Eich did invent Javascript, and despite what that says about his judgement (or lack thereof), I think it's totally unfair to crucify somebody for their personal opinions. Just saying.

  • by DaMP12000 (710387) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @03:24PM (#46652995)

    Should I be persecuted for voting Democrat? What about voting for or giving money to gay marriage? It cuts both ways remember.

    You can do what you want, but you have to understand the consequences of your actions. It is my absolute right to not support you if you stand for an opinion contrary to mine.

  • by Kielistic (1273232) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @03:26PM (#46653023)

    Sure. But you lose your right to claim to be pro free speech after advocating a boycott as an attempt to silence someone exercising their free speech.

    You beat bad ideas with good ideas. Not censorship.

  • by Yosho (135835) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @03:27PM (#46653035) Homepage

    Do we want to live in a society where people are persecuted for their beliefs?

    When those beliefs are abhorrent, sure. To go ahead and make an extreme example, do you want to live in a society where nobody bats an eye if somebody in a position of power says they believe Jewish people should be burned in ovens?

    While this guy's particular belief isn't quite that bad, also consider that he donated a considerable amount of money to a group dedicated to passing laws discriminating against a class of people. On top of that, it's hardly "persecuting" somebody to simply not use a product that he represents. He made the decision to step down. Try again when people are physically harassing him or refusing to serve him in restaurants.

  • by AK Marc (707885) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @03:27PM (#46653041)
    So I shouldn't have the freedom of speech to denounce those who take actions I disagree with?

    That is the question here. Whether the people had the right to complain about the actions of another. Anything else is a distraction to the issue. It isn't about gay rights, or human rights, just free speech and nothing but.

    Do I have the right to complain about someone who took an action I didn't like? The "pro-free speech" crowd claims no, and the "anti-free speech" crowd says yes.

    It gets so confusing.
  • by Cpt_Kirks (37296) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @03:30PM (#46653117)

    Free Speech took a shot to the head. Political Correctness bullshit seems to trump it, every damn time.

    Frankly NOW I'm thinking of totally dumping Firefox.

  • by CanHasDIY (1672858) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @03:31PM (#46653127) Homepage Journal

    Sure. But you lose your right to claim to be pro free speech after advocating a boycott as an attempt to silence someone exercising their free speech.

    You beat bad ideas with good ideas. Not censorship.

    So, if a local business decides to ban smoking, and I decide to stop spending my money there because I disagree with their policy, I'm "silencing" or "censoring" them?

    Bullshit. Free speech is a two way street, and if you're going to exercise your right to it, you have to understand that other people might react in kind.

  • How can he file a defamation lawsuit? The thing that OKCupid said WASN'T A LIE.

    Defamation requires a FALSE statement. He donated the money. It's HIS FAULT that he's a homophobe that wants to deny other people's rights. He didn't apologise for past behaviour, or seek to remedy it.

    His opinion is his own, but he tried to have his opinion written into law, which isn't okay with me when it runs contrary to fundamental human rights. You can't deny a segment of the population rights and privileges just because they were born a certain way.

    He can't win shit. He has no business feeling angry at anyone other than himself.

  • by Jeff Flanagan (2981883) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @03:33PM (#46653177)
    >there is no justification for equating the regular, children-producing marriage and gay-unions.

    Are you sure that you're not an ignorant social conservative, rather than a libertarian. That's the argument that toxic loons like Bryan Fischer try to peddle. It's easily shot down by the fact that plenty of people marry and don't have children, so most people wouldn't try to argue it outside of far-right sites where the average IQ is well below room temperature.

    > Indeed, no culture in the history of humanity has done so

    That's exactly what a social conservative would say. If you're really a Libertarian, it's clear that you got that way via being a backward social conservative.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 03, 2014 @03:34PM (#46653191)

    So what do you suggest? Making it illegal for people to boycott companies they disagree with?

    Everyone's freedom of speech was protected here. He has a right to speak out against gay marriage. Private citizens have a right to boycott.

    Suggest a remedy for that. Compelling people to buy products?

  • by Yosho (135835) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @03:36PM (#46653227) Homepage

    Like denying someone the right to remain in a job based on their religious beliefs?

    First of all, you don't have the right to remain in a job no matter what. Companies are well within their rights to fire you if you're hurting their bottom line. Eich's religion is not the issue here -- believe it or not, the majority of employed workers in the USA consider themselves Christians.

    But even if you did have that right, he wasn't denied it. He chose to step down.

  • by CanHasDIY (1672858) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @03:36PM (#46653237) Homepage Journal

    Even if the government should recognize marriage at all (an assumption I, as a Libertarian, doubt strongly), there is no justification for equating the regular, children-producing marriage and gay-unions.

    Didn't realize the legitimacy of my marriage was contingent on whether or not my wife and I decide to reproduce.

    Oh, right, it's not. Marriage is quite obviously a business contract, once you put emotion aside.

  • by Stormy Dragon (800799) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @03:37PM (#46653251) Homepage

    And conversely, we have the right to criticize your criticism.

  • by Dega704 (1454673) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @03:39PM (#46653281)
    So he supported Proposition 8 six years ago. How much insight does that really give us into the scope of his character? How many CEOs have done much, much more despicable things in their personal and professional lives and faced little to no public criticism for it? You could write a novel on all of the rotten things that Steve Jobs did, but instead he gets praised by the media as the computing messiah, because none of his antics were hot-button political issues. The gay rights community is turning into the very thing they despise. Flame me all you want. This was NOT justice.
  • by Aaden42 (198257) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @03:41PM (#46653311) Homepage

    you lose your right to claim to be pro free speech after advocating a boycott

    This is so utterly false, I don’t even know where to start. Eich had every right to speak in support of Prop 8 or anything else he might like to, but I also have the right to express my distaste of his bigoted ideas by withholding my support of any organization which he runs.

    I’ll defend to the death his right to *say* whatever he likes, but there’s no reason in the world I need to do business with someone whose views I consider to make them a reprehensible human being. The idea that not giving someone your money is equivalent to silencing their right to free speech strikes me as an incredible sense of entitlement. There’s nothing about the right to free speech that entitles you to say anything you want without consequences of having said it. Freedom of speech means the government can’t silence you, but that protection begins and ends with the *government*. How any individual chooses to interact with you as a result of *your* free speech is as much a matter of *their* free speech as you being free to say it in the first place.

    There’s nothing about supporting free speech that requires me to also support every person who speaks an opinion I disagree with. By your logic, I should vote for a politician whose views I disagree with because if I voted against him, I’d be infringing on his right to free speech. That’s preposterous and misguided and flat out foolish.

  • by spire3661 (1038968) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @03:42PM (#46653333) Journal
    How does this tripe get insightful? NO ONE IS PROSECUTING this man. He stated an opinion and backed it up with money, lots of people found his position reprehensible and pointed out their displeasure. This displeasure was large enough to have him removed from Mozilla. Its not a witch hunt.
  • by spire3661 (1038968) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @03:44PM (#46653349) Journal
    Please explain how the government is limiting this man's speech. Oh they arent? Then its not a Free Speech issue, which only concerns itself with communication between you and your government.
  • Wait, so you think couples that are sterile or very old shouldn't be allowed to marry either?

    If you disagree with that statement, you're actually just an asshole, you're not a libertarian. Marriage is a social construct that has very little to do with raising children in this day and age. I'm married, and we have no plans to have children ever. I don't see what that has to do with anything.

    I agree that the government should have no say in who I have a relationship with, but as long as they do, they're obligated to apply their rules fairly across all groups of people, regardless of their skin colour, ethnicity, orientation, gender, etc.

  • by spire3661 (1038968) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @03:47PM (#46653403) Journal
    NO one is silencing him, Mozilla is simply removing their branded podium he was standing on. He is free to give as much money to hate groups as he wants.
  • by Grishnakh (216268) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @03:52PM (#46653477)

    Don't be retarded; you and Eich both have freedom of speech. The rest of us are free to voice our disagreement and call you bigots, and to demand his removal as CEO. Since an organization like Mozilla isn't going to last long with a lot of negative publicity and accusations that it's headed by a shameless bigot, they did the rational thing and got rid of him.

    Freedom of speech doesn't mean the rest of us have to put up with you or accept you; we're all free to denounce you and shun you. Somehow, the people who shout "freedom of speech!" always seem to forget that.

  • by Kaenneth (82978) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @03:55PM (#46653513) Homepage Journal

    No, this is getting the cook fired by claiming there is hair in your food, because you spotted an Obama sticker on his car in the parking lot.

  • by Bartles (1198017) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @03:56PM (#46653527)
    Yep. Basically, you are saying that the only safe opinion is empty opinion. I'll pass on your politically repressed society. I'll chose a liberal society any day over that.
  • by Minupla (62455) <minupla&gmail,com> on Thursday April 03, 2014 @03:56PM (#46653541) Homepage Journal

    Unless US law is different then I'm aware of (and a quick bit of research suggests it is not) defamation (liable or slander) lawsuits require saying/writing something that is false. Here's the OKCupid statement:

    "Hello there, Mozilla Firefox user. Pardon this interruption of your OkCupid experience.

    Mozilla's new CEO, Brendan Eich, is an opponent of equal rights for gay couples. We would therefore prefer that our users not use Mozilla software to access OkCupid.

    Politics is normally not the business of a website, and we all know there's a lot more wrong with the world than misguided CEOs. So you might wonder why we're asserting ourselves today. This is why: we've devoted the last ten years to bringing peopleâ"all peopleâ"together. If individuals like Mr. Eich had their way, then roughly 8% of the relationships we've worked so hard to bring about would be illegal. Equality for gay relationships is personally important to many of us here at OkCupid. But it's professionally important to the entire company. OkCupid is for creating love. Those who seek to deny love and instead enforce misery, shame, and frustration are our enemies, and we wish them nothing but failure.

    If you want to keep using Firefox, the link at the bottom will take you through to the site.

    However, we urge you to consider different software for accessing OkCupid:"

    It seems to me that the statement consists of statements that in for far as the public record is concerned, are true. E.g. "Brendan Eich, is an opponent of equal rights for gay couples.", which is supported by the contribution that started this all; the rest of it appears to be statements that either relate to feelings of OK Cupid, or clearly deliminated opinions. IANAL, but I do spend a lot of time talking to them professionally, and I think it would actually be a very weak case for liable (which is what this would be, slander refers to the spoken word, liable to the written one).

    You are welcome to opinions on how OKCupid handled this, but I think the argument that it's legally actionable is probably incorrect.

    In brief, in order to be defamatory, a statement must be:

    1) Public (e.g. someone had to have heard it other then the two parties)
    2) False
    3) Not an opinion
    4) Damaging
    (there's a couple of other items that have no baring in this case)

    I think anyone reasonable could agree on 1 and 4, but 2 & 3 have larger hurdles.

    Min

  • by Microlith (54737) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @03:59PM (#46653587)

    But you lose your right to claim to be pro free speech after advocating a boycott as an attempt to silence someone exercising their free speech.

    This line is bullshit. They did not attempt to silence him, they opposed his being appointed CEO. Please stop trying to equate the protests as an attempt at censorship, because it's not.

  • by QuantumPion (805098) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @04:01PM (#46653611)

    Advocating a boycott is fine. Advocating an employee be fired as a punitive measure, when their job has nothing to do with the issue itself, is not fine.

  • by Kielistic (1273232) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @04:01PM (#46653613)

    You might have a point if Mozilla banned gay employees.

    If someone that worked at a local business had the opinion that smoking should be banned would it be okay to try to force that company to fire them with your more populous opinion? How about if a local business employee thought that blacks should be able to drink at the same water fountain but the local community didn't like that idea so got the person fired?

    I will not agree with the use of underhanded and immoral tactics just to get my way. It is wrong when others do it and it is still wrong even if the power dynamic has shifted and put you in the driver's seat. Bigotry cannot be fought that way.

  • by TsuruchiBrian (2731979) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @04:02PM (#46653623)

    Freedom of speech protects you from punishment by the government for your speech.

    If you argue that free speech should only be protected against the government and not against employers, then you are in effect saying that a majority of people shouldn't have any free speech protections at all.

    This is just false. The fact that you can be fired for saying something stupid, does not in any way diminish the fact that you can not be imprisoned for saying something stupid.

  • by mellon (7048) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @04:04PM (#46653653) Homepage

    Free speech is a constitutional restriction on the government. It does not mean that you are not subject to criticism. It just means the government can't stop you from speaking. That's _all_ it means.

  • by AmiMoJo (196126) * <{ten.3dlrow} {ta} {ojom}> on Thursday April 03, 2014 @04:12PM (#46653783) Homepage

    And as long as they're not directly being a dick to you

    How is trying to get a law passed that bans you from marrying the person of your choice because you are homosexual not "directly being a dick to you"? It's a direct attack on the lives of gay people.

    Free speech does not mean freedom from consequences or others reaction to them.

  • by Wycliffe (116160) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @04:14PM (#46653819) Homepage

    He stated an opinion and backed it up with money, lots of people found his position reprehensible and pointed out their displeasure. This displeasure was large enough to have him removed from Mozilla. Its not a witch hunt.

    I think it's a witchhunt when someone is fired from a job for having an opinion that roughly 50% of the population has.
    Regardless of which side you are on, gay marriage it is very much still a debatable issue. There is a reason that it
    barely fails to pass in one area and then barely passes in another area only to be appealed and then appealed again.
    The national jury is still trying to decide. It seems wrong to fire someone for having an opinion when the collective
    whole is still trying to decide. Why should he be fired when approximately half of firefox's user base agrees with him?

  • by seebs (15766) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @04:15PM (#46653839) Homepage

    I don't see any persecution here. This is how free speech works; you get to say whatever you want, other people get to react to it.

  • by mellon (7048) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @04:15PM (#46653843) Homepage

    Actually peer pressure is one of the ways that persecution stops. This is a classic example of peer pressure punishing someone for engaging in persecution of a minority. This is not analogous to having a disagreement about a matter of fact. This is a case where someone deliberately took action to make sure that someone he doesn't like wouldn't have the same rights he has.

    So while I think the basic point you are making has some validity, the problem is that while I would not shun Brendan for actively supporting proposition 8, any more than I would shun someone who opposed freeing the slaves, it would definitely color my attitude toward that person, and the contexts in which I would trust that person to speak on my behalf.

    The nature of leadership roles, such as CEO, is that the leader is not being hired solely for their ability to do a particular set of tasks. They are being hired to lead the organization. So a CEO who is willing to take away from others rights that he keeps for himself is simply not someone I'd want to work for. How do I know he's not going to do the same to me? And an organization looking for a CEO ought to be concerned about the direction in which that CEO would lead the organization.

  • Unlike him, I haven't contributed to any organisations that seek to remove anyone's rights, and certainly not HIS rights.

    I don't have to support him or any company that he's the head of. He can have his opinions, but I'm not obligated to think Mozilla is wonderful no matter what.

    There's a big difference between holding an opinion and trying to have your opinion written into law. I'm sure there are homophobes and bigots working at the company that I'm at. (In fact, I practically guarantee it.)

    I don't think that people that hold those views should be in positions of authority. It gives the impression--rightly or wrongly--that the company tacitly supports his beliefs.

    How many non-CEOs have you seen fired from their jobs because they've done something publicly embarrassing to the company that they work for? I don't see how a CEO should be above that. He's a lightning-rod for criticism (criticism that I think he deserves) and it's a distraction to the goals of Mozilla. Additionally, the LGBT people that work there are reportedly uncomfortable with someone like that heading the company, and I think it should be understandable why. His donation indicates that he thinks those people are second-class citizens--that they don't deserve the same full spectrum of rights that he does.

    This is no different from someone donating to anti-civil-rights measures leading a company. I don't see why it's such a stretch to hold racists and homophobes to account for their opinions and actions. They're untenable positions and I won't support them.

    I'm not trying to convince anyone that he's humanity's greatest monster, or that he's sub-human. I just don't think you should be able to walk around with abhorrent views like that and expect everyone to still venerate you as a great person.

  • by steelfood (895457) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @04:19PM (#46653915)

    Public pressure managed to ruin a man's professional career due to his personal beliefs. McCarthy would be proud indeed.

    And even better, he wouldn't have had to lift a finger today to get the same results.

  • by crunchygranola (1954152) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @04:20PM (#46653937)

    This issue is a large group of people attempting to put pressure on a company to get rid of an employee based on their personal views...

    Odd, I thought being a CEO made you an employer, you know, one of those "job creators".

    By the way - one point a lot of people seem to be missing here is that as CEO Eich would have the power to decide how the company he heads throws its weight around in the political arena - you know making political contributions, lobbying, filing amicus briefs, funding all manner of political foundations and front groups.

  • by NoKaOi (1415755) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @04:21PM (#46653963)

    there is no justification for equating the regular, children-producing marriage and gay-unions.

    So then a heterosexual marriage that doesn't produce children, either because the couple is medically unable to or doesn't want to, should be treated equally to gay marriage, right? And therefore, if a non-child-producing heterosexual marriage is legal, then a gay marriage should be legal too, right?

    Indeed, no culture in the history of humanity has done so — even those, who (like ancient Athens) were perfectly tolerant of homosexuality.

    So what? You're saying that our culture should be just like historical cultures? We should have slavery? There should be no equal rights for women? It should be perfectly legal and acceptable to beat our children or wives bloody for misbehaving? We should be imprisoned for speaking out against the government? Also, there are plenty of things that apply to historical cultures that don't apply today. The most important in this case being population numbers. Back then, more people died from things like disease and war, so the members of that population had as many kids as they could in order to keep up their population numbers to grow their culture and prevent their culture from being wiped out (this can be seen in modern times by the growth of Mormonism). This doesn't apply to today, when our problem is overpopulation, not underpopulation.

  • by hydrofix (1253498) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @04:23PM (#46653987)
    Oh, for god's sake, don't you get it? All opinions are equally meaningless unless people actually react to them. The ultimate non-existence of freedom of speech would be a society, where speech and actions have no consequences. This time, the consequence of his actions was that the public saw him as unfit for CEO of Mozilla. No one has denied him the right to hold those views, and he has been very kindly offered [cnet.com] a platform to express them. What you should take away from this, is that your political opinions are often of little importance when you are just another employee, but once you become the CEO, who is a public figure, you can expect heat from those who disagree with your opinions. Which you have an absolute right to. Just like those who disagree with you.
  • by Ralph Wiggam (22354) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @04:24PM (#46654009) Homepage

    Obamacare allows everyone in the country to share ownership of the means of production? Sweet. I'm going to tour some of the factories that I'm now part owner of.

  • by Ralph Wiggam (22354) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @04:26PM (#46654041) Homepage

    It had nothing to do with his personal beliefs.

  • by JOrgePeixoto (853808) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @04:27PM (#46654067) Journal

    He wasn't fired, he chose to resign as it was in the best interests of Mozilla. As CEO he was the figurehead of the company, and he simply cannot distinguish his private beliefs from those of the company in the same way as a rank-and-file employee can. No one cared that he worked at Mozilla - they cared that he _led_ Mozilla.

    Would you think it OK if the figurehead of a technological organization had to resign after boycots from those who objected to a $1000 donation, 5 years ago, to some side of the abortion issue, or the death penalty issue?

  • by TsuruchiBrian (2731979) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @04:36PM (#46654241)

    There is also no reason to assume that the sole purpose of marriage is to produce children. Also, marriages don't produce children. The biology of producing children is in no way dependent on the institution of marriage. Gay people are also perfectly capable of producing children and many do.

    I also share your view that marriage should be completely separate from government. Marriage even in the legal sense entails a lot of things involving inheritance, hospital visits, power of attorney, alimony, taxes, etc. All of this stuff applies just as well to same sex couples. It doesn't really have anything to do with children. (which same sex couples can also have). There is no law forcing people to get married if they have kids. There is no law forcing married people to have kids.

    And there is a very good reason to use the same legal construct (i.e. calling both same sex and heterosexual unions, marriages), because despite the claims, civil unions (which each state defines it's own way, if at all) do not confer the same rights as marriage. In the same way that separate but equal laws lead to anything but equality in the south during segregation, separate legal definitions for civil unions for gay people and marriages for straight people, leaves the door wide open for differences in the rights offered by these 2 institutions.

    I don't care if certain churches refuse to consider gay marriages legitimate. I would actually prefer if marriage was removed from government influence altogether. But what we can't have is the government offering a right to one group of people and not another.

  • by PsychoSlashDot (207849) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @04:38PM (#46654277)

    Free Speech took a shot to the head. Political Correctness bullshit seems to trump it, every damn time.

    Frankly NOW I'm thinking of totally dumping Firefox.

    Bullshit. Political correctness is referring to a gay man as "a person of alternate sexual proclivities". Political correctness is passing policies that mandate one fourth of your female workforce must be lesbians because one in four women have had a girl-girl experience.

    This is a man who took a high-profile job and was outed as a bigot. A man who thinks that it's worth paying money to impose his opinions one where someone else sticks their dick. A man who doesn't believe that gay people are people. That's not rhetoric, that's the way it is. Being against gay marriage is almost always on the grounds that "marriage is a sacred bond between man and woman", directly indicating that any other coupling is wrong and bad, and that those who engage in such practices should be penalized by being denied the same rights hetero-married enjoy.

    Modern, enlightened society caught up with this guy when he took a job with visibility. Sorry, but him and his cro-magnan-thinker buddies just aren't right for this kind of a job because they taint the brand they represent.

  • by NeutronCowboy (896098) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @04:41PM (#46654331)

    It's not a dangerous road, it's how societies operate. As a matter of fact, it's the only way to actually build a society. Anything short of that is just pie-in-the-sky anarchism. As for your reverse example, that is exactly what's taking place in the US right now. They're free to do that, and I'm free to organize a counter boycott.

    The alternative that you propose either requires an incredible restriction on speech and action, or requires a complete lack of interaction between any individuals. One is terrible, the other untenable.

  • by steelfood (895457) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @04:47PM (#46654411)

    You're thinking of a 1st amendment issue regardinig the government. Free Speech exists above anything written on a piece of paper.

  • by steelfood (895457) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @04:51PM (#46654491)

    You seem to have fail at separating personal from professional.

    It has everything to do with his personal beliefs.

    If he had fired a bunch of LGBT-supporting employees at Mozilla, or defunded the LGBT club (if they have one) there, that would be crossing the line between personal and professional. Only then would all this outrage be justified.

    Did he do anything like this during his short tenure? I certainly haven't heard.

  • by vux984 (928602) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @04:52PM (#46654501)

    Sure. But you lose your right to claim to be pro free speech after advocating a boycott as an attempt to silence someone exercising their free speech.

    Wow. This is just nuts, and you got +5 for it too. That's even more nuts.

    A boycott isn't an attempt to silence him.
    It a show of "non-support".

    The fact that I don't to watch Fox news (ie I boycott it), is not "censorship" by ANY reasonable definition.

    You are being ridiculous by attempting to conflate "boycott" with "censorship".

  • by amicusNYCL (1538833) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @04:56PM (#46654577)

    Boycotting them is fine. Using public media outlets demanding the business owner be fired as a punitive measure is not.

    What's the difference? Boycotts are usually publicized.

  • by Aighearach (97333) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @04:58PM (#46654605) Homepage

    You are right. But he is being persecuted.

    By his peers. For being an asshat.

    This is exactly how it is supposed to work when we have free speech.

    Free speech is not, was not, and will never be moral relativism.

    He is free to offend the public, and being a public business figure, his public image will affect his job. Just as, he is free to say something awesome that will make people love him.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 03, 2014 @04:58PM (#46654617)

    No, this is getting the cook fired by claiming there is hair in your food, because you spotted an Obama sticker on his car in the parking lot.

    He didn't get fired, he quit.

    Bullshit. He didn't quit, the same way all those other people that 'resign' to 'spend more time with their family' didn't quit.
    Because you dress it up in pretty words doesn't change that fact that the forces of intolerance and hatred successfully hounded him from his job, for something entirely unrelated to his job.

  • by Aighearach (97333) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @05:03PM (#46654691) Homepage

    No, a witch-hunt would be if we didn't like him, and so we lied about what he said or set up an attack where loses his job if he did what we said, or if he didn't.

    Roughly 50% of the population do blurt out offensive things that would negatively affect their career if they were a public figure. That is no surprise.

    Probably well over 50% of the population blurts out idiotic nonsense that would get them fired if they were an engineer, too. Obviously a different set of idiotic nonsense, granted. But the average person does not have the skills or experience to be an engineer. Or a CEO. Part of being a CEO is to be the face of the organization. If you do anything that is high profile enough to be noticed by the public, that reflects on the organization. That is just part of being the public face of an organization.

    Personally, I would never take that sort of job because I value privacy over money. But these are the sort of decisions a person makes in life.

  • by steelfood (895457) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @05:06PM (#46654721)

    as CEO Eich would have the power to decide how the company he heads throws its weight around in the political arena - you know making political contributions, lobbying, filing amicus briefs, funding all manner of political foundations and front groups.

    And yet, he has not had the opportunity to do any of these things before he was forced out. In fact, he's stated that nothing would change about Mozilla's stance towards the LGBT community and its issues. Yet he was judged not by his ability nor his performance, but by his beliefs. How is that not being bigoted?

  • by DaHat (247651) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @05:08PM (#46654767) Homepage

    No one's denied Eich any freedom at all. He can spout his bigoted views as much as he wants. The rest of us are allowed to complain loudly about it,

    Tell me, what's it like to be a bigot?

    Yes you are.. you are acknowledging your membership and participation in a group which has acted very vocally on it's intolerance of his views. I may not agree with his views (or yours)... but you don't see me demanding that any of you resign or be fired.

    So yes, that makes you a bigot.

    I wonder what else you and Mr Eich have in common?

  • by xevioso (598654) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @05:15PM (#46654855)

    Well, we don't actually know this. Lots of people here are saying "he wasn't fired, he quit" but the board may have told him "Quit or you'll be fired", which is pretty much the same thing.

  • by Yunzil (181064) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @05:18PM (#46654895) Homepage

    Sorry, no. Free speech doesn't mean freedom from having to face the consequences of that speech.

  • by msauve (701917) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @05:54PM (#46655357)
    "He wanted to use political force to deny rights to people. So it's more then just an opinion."

    You don't know what rights are. Marriage, and the governmental advantages associated with it (such as lower tax rates), is a privilege. Whether hetero or homo, there is no "right" for anyone to get married, or to have the state recognize that marriage.

    Furthermore, he was supporting his own opinion, which was not only with the side of the majority, but was related to a right we do have, the right to vote. Would you support firing the over 50% of California voters who supported Prop 8? (That's rhetorical - of course you would, you've shown yourself to be an intolerant bigot)
  • by Ralph Wiggam (22354) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @06:04PM (#46655479) Homepage

    ...or Totalitarianism, which is what he's actually describing.

  • by Dcnjoe60 (682885) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @06:20PM (#46655747)

    Oh Christ. Free Speech is fine. The government interfered with nothing. Just because he's allowed to say shit doesn't mean the world has to like it. He's an asshole if he thinks that a certain class of people deserve fewer rights than other people, and I wouldn't be any less condemning of his statements if he'd donated similar money to campaigns to remove rights from blacks, or asians, or any other minority group.

    What you say might be true, but then he was with Mozilla, in a top ranking position long before now. Why wasn't their a public outcry back when Prop 8 passed?

    And he didn't give money to a campaign to remove rights from anybody. He gave money to a campaign that basically defined marriage as between one mand and one woman. Over half the people in CA agreed with that. What's next, we are taking rights away from certain Morman groups, because gay or straight, they can't be married to more than one person?

    For a group that states that they promote tolerance, they seem to be pretty intolerant. It's not tolerance if the requirement is you have to agree only with their position.

  • by lgw (121541) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @06:25PM (#46655797) Journal

    He doesn't have some fringe position. He had in 2006 the same position as Obama's official position, the same as the majority of Cali voters.

    So, yes, you do need to say where you draw the line if you support shit like this.

  • by lgw (121541) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @06:58PM (#46656151) Journal

    He holds a very popular, mainstream view. You support firing people who have very popular, mainstream views that you disagree with. I think that's fucked up.

    There should not be personal consequences for standing on one side or another of mainstream political debates. Gay marriage, abortion, there are always issues that people are quite passionate about. If you lose the election, you don't get your way and that's the price of democracy - and it's a good trade-off. But if we target individuals for persecution, we lose democracy.

  • by Vaphell (1489021) on Thursday April 03, 2014 @09:23PM (#46657323)

    bollocks. Freedom of speech is a two way street. If you hound people in their jobs for things they say on their own time and dime, you legitimize hounding people you like by the people you don't like for whatever bullshit reasons. So what now, half of Cali should lose their jobs because they supported and voted for the Christian definition of marriage and professional victims in LGBT movement have an issue with that? And then in retaliation every Dem loses his job in red states?
    "No, b-b-but it's different you see? i am RIGHT and they are WRONG".
    No, you are a fucking hypocrite. If your stance on how to conduct business between the 'good' guys and the 'bad' guys doesn't survive multiplying by -1, it fucking sucks.

    The state of California as a whole supported Prop 8, and even Obama was antigay marriage in 2008. What we have here is a convenient scapegoat from 6 years ago because someone, somewhere was not outraged for too long.

  • by aristotle-dude (626586) on Friday April 04, 2014 @01:36AM (#46658455)
    You must stop using Javascript or you will be labels as fascists, heterophobes and hypocrites. After all, the man you demonized invented Javascript. He probably contributed more to the internet that you know and love than any living gay person or gay rights supporter. So if you are truly principled and not just a bunch of blind hypocrites and bigots, you all need to get off the javascript enabled internet immediately.

    PS. Don't let the door hit you on your pompous asses as you leave.

  • by dave420 (699308) on Friday April 04, 2014 @04:14AM (#46659045)
    When someone wants to deny freedom to someone else simply because of benign, arbitrarily-selected attributes, that's hate. There's no logic or reason behind wanting gay folks to not get married, just a visceral reaction born from emotion, not fact. Prop 8 is about as hateful as you can get - it's designed to make people second-class citizens simply because of who they are, a quality they can not (nor should not) change. Keep trying to argue away the hate - you won't be very successful, and afterwards, people will still see you for who you are. And your examples are terrible, which is what happens when otherwise-intelligent people try to reason their hatred.
  • by Descalzo (898339) on Friday April 04, 2014 @12:29PM (#46662565) Journal
    Hilarious that this statement is made after a story regarding marriage.

If God had a beard, he'd be a UNIX programmer.

Working...