Mozilla CEO quits after a few days of being CEO

[KelsieJ]

He demonstrated he is a tool and they demonstrated they didn't want a tool in command.  Simple no?

Amen, Sister

[Androgynous_Machine]

It's the price you pay for outmoded line of thinking.


/shrug

Free speech in action.

-AM

[JamesG]

I should know better, but I'm gonna wade in here. And Zoe could use some back up for an unpopular stand.

He demonstrated he is a tool and they demonstrated they didn't want a tool in command.  Simple no?

No, the corporate board caved into intimidation.

[JamesG]

Hideyoshi isn't trying to deny him a basic human right -

Freedom of expression, freedom of religion, pursuit of happiness...

to have a relationship legally recognised should be the right of ANY couple.  Yes people should always be entitled to an opinion, but if the outcome of that opinion being implemented is pain or suffering for anyone it should be dismissed, no matter the source.

And....  the thought police have spoken.

Why should outdated opinions be tolerated in modern day society?  Because an old book of unknown provenance said so?

For the same reasons yours are.

People should not deny others the same rights that they have purely on religious beliefs, end of story.

Instead they should be denied if they have politically incorrect opinions and attempt express them?

[JamesG]

Religion has, throughout history, sought to circumvent laws and exploit loopholes to poison the political system with its beliefs which are not grounded in reason and are defended against all reason.

Wrong.  PEOPLE have manipulated political systems, as often with reason and logic as with religious belief.

Take care while you're sharpening that axe you don't put your eye out...

1. Establishment clause
2. Free exercise clause
3. Free speech

Tell me where I'm trying to impose anything on anyone that isn't in accordance to those three things.

You are advocating denying them to someone you disagree with. You really cant see the ironic hypocrisy here?

You can say whatever you want (except understood things like fire in a crowded theater), but you must be ready to face to consequences.  If I had a religion with mandated that 'On each new moon, thou shalt say "eat s*** and die" to thy employer,' and I get fired, should I cry that I'm being oppressed?

Yes. Should you get fired because you support LGBT rights or because you say you like a certain color?  Do you see the slippery slope of tyranny you are standing on?

[Ltl89]

As one of the biggest lgbt supporters and one of the biggest opponents of prop-8, I don't believe he should have stepped down over this..  You can dislike him as a person and you can even boycott Mozilla products if you are against his employment, but I find the idea of firing him to be a tad over the line (and that's essentially what happened).  If it was effecting their business or his views were creating problems in the work place or with their products, I could understand, but this is just really censorship of someone that backed a law that was being voted on.  Speaking up on a personal level and boycotting a product is your personal prerogative, but this kind of just feels like this really should have been a non-issue.  Had he written anti-gay propaganda in the firefox browser or used his position for a political soapbox, then it could be justified, but as it stands nothing of the sort was happening and people just wanted to marginalize someone for their beliefs rather than their own personal conduct.  I can't be in favor of that no matter how much I support the lgbt community and think it was dumb for him to support prop 8.

[Hideyoshi]

Wrong.  PEOPLE have manipulated political systems, as often with reason and logic as with religious belief.

Take care while you're sharpening that axe you don't put your eye out...

The whole 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' routine, huh.  Religion makes it a hell of a lot easier.

You are advocating denying them to someone you disagree with. You really cant see the ironic hypocrisy here?

I am denying NO ONE their constitutional rights. It's so funny, conservative Christians have this intense persecution complex. I'm so sorry that you think that me enjoying seeing someone lose their job because they are a backwards, bigoted a-hole somehow infringes on their constitutional rights.

Yes. Should you get fired because you support LGBT rights or because you say you like a certain color?  Do you see the slippery slope of tyranny you are standing on?

It's not a slippery slope.  And it's not tyranny because it's not the goveRNMENT DOING IT. What happened to the CEO was the definition of the free market, which baffles me as to why conservatives hate what happened so much.  The CEO said something indefensibly stupid. Mozilla saw that him voicing these things may hurt their bottom line because the populace is becoming more and more accepting of LGBT people. Public pressure forced the hand of the business and the CEO. The DEFINITION of the free market.

Freedom of expression, freedom of religion, pursuit of happiness...

I am NOT trying to take the rights away from ANYONE. Is Mozilla owned by the government? Did the government call up Mozilla and tell them to fire the guy? No? Then nobody's rights were infringed. You strike me as the same kind of person who would scream about 'freedom of speech' on places like YouTube and Facebook. Private companies firing or pressuring the resignation of employees for detrimental business decisions or censoring speech that it doesn't agree with is not infringing on anybody's rights.

[JamesG]

The Government is not the only entity that infringes upon the freedoms and rights of other ya know.

Do you think it is right if a company or group fires or otherwise sanctions someone for stating something you agree with, like if they were fired for supporting LGBT rights?  That is the exact mirror image of what happened to Eich. Neither is "right".

What you are missing is that it wasn't *what* was said or if it was "right", "wrong", or any other subjective measure. But the fact that someone suffered because they exercised their freedom of expression.  If you can't see or admit that then...  this discussion is pointless because at best you have an immature appreciation of "freedom".

[Cindy]

 

Please be aware of ToS in this discussion.

I encourage healthy debate, but once people start throwing insults at each other I will step in.

Just argue your point of view please.

Thank You

Cindy

[Eva Marie]

But the fact that someone suffered because they exercised their freedom of expression.

Freedom of expression has limits in the work place. Any such expression that is likely to harm the business will NOT be tolerated, especially at the C level of a company. This guy's "expression" was beginning to bring unwanted attention to Mozilla. Bad move for him especially as the CEO. It was simply a business decision; nothing more and nothing less.

[Hideyoshi]

The Government is not the only entity that infringes upon the freedoms and rights of other ya know.

Do you think it is right if a company or group fires or otherwise sanctions someone for stating something you agree with, like if they were fired for supporting LGBT rights?  That is the exact mirror image of what happened to Eich. Neither is "right".

What you are missing is that it wasn't *what* was said or if it was "right", "wrong", or any other subjective measure. But the fact that someone suffered because they exercised their freedom of expression.  If you can't see or admit that then...  this discussion is pointless because at best you have an immature appreciation of "freedom".

How many times do I have to repeat this?

You have the absolute freedom to say whatever you want within reason (no fire in crowded theater, kill people, etc), but you are NOT immune to criticism nor the consequences of your expression.

As far as whether I think it would be right or wrong for a company to sanction someone who says something I agree with, by definition I would think it was wrong of the company. Therefore, I wouldn't do business with that company or endorse their products. I will never use the firefox browser ever again. It's the free market. Why conservatives hate it so is beyond me.

[JamesG]

Ummm... Eich got canned. Mozilla is now perfectly Politically Correct again. Firefox is a really good browser (I'm using it right now  ).

Perhaps you meant you won't use "OKcupid.com" its parent company or support the LGBT groups that launched the campaign to suppress his freedom to exercise his Constitutional rights?  I can see how this can be confusing.

See my reply to Eva:

It was simply a business decision; nothing more and nothing less.

No it wasn't. He didn't make any comments as CEO or even as a representative of the company, did it as a private citizen.  In no way would this impact the operation of Mozilla or its business interest.   It was activism, intimidation by a small group to coerce an action.  It was just as bigoted and unfair as doing the same to a minority or unpopular group. It just happened to be on the other foot.   

Again I ask;  Would you be cool with this if Eich were a transgender person or even just gave charitable donations to transgendered support or political groups and he was being boycotted and forced to resign because of it?

The only way can say yes is if you are letting your bias overrule your logical appreciation for the Rule of Law.  Be careful because that cuts both ways...

[Hideyoshi]

Ummm... Eich got canned. Mozilla is now perfectly Politically Correct again. Firefox is a really good browser (I'm using it right now  ).

See my reply to Eva:
No it wasn't. He didn't make any comments as CEO or even as a representative of the company, did it as a private citizen.  In no way would this impact the operation of Mozilla or its business interest.   It was activism, intimidation by a small group to coerce an action.  It was just as bigoted and unfair as doing the same to a minority or unpopular group. It just happened to be on the other foot.   

Again I ask;  Would you be cool with this if Eich were a transgender person or even just gave charitable donations to transgendered support or political groups and he was being boycotted and forced to resign because of it?

The only way can say yes is if you are letting your bias overrule your logical appreciation for the Rule of Law.  Be careful because that cuts both ways...

Get one thing straight, which is that the CEO stepped down, he didn't get 'canned.' He stepped down due to the immense pressure from the public that his bigotry got him. Free market.

And if Eich were transgendered and didn't have the retarded views he has, I would support him. As the times are now, the only people who would care to boycott a company because the head is transgender are conservatives, and their ilk are dying off with age. The US is embracing a more and more tolerant and accepting mindset, as far as LGBT rights are concerned.  If he was forced to resign (which I wouldn't see happening in this evolving age), it would be a shame, because he would have been forced to resign over something as fundamental as gender expression, as opposed to being a bigoted ignoramus.

Perhaps you meant you won't use "OKcupid.com" its parent company or support the LGBT groups that launched the campaign to suppress his freedom to exercise his Constitutional rights?  I can see how this can be confusing.

I should just stop responding to this 'constitutional rights being infringed upon because somebody got flak for saying bigoted nonsense' rhetoric.

What OKcupid did was assert their position of equality for all while stating that Mozilla has a bigoted CEO. Nobody's rights were being suppressed. The CEO is more than free to do and say whatever he wants within the law. But he is not immune from the backlash his actions can bring. The free market prevailed. Why do you loathe it so much?

The Government is not the only entity that infringes upon the freedoms and rights of other ya know.

Oh, I missed this little gem.

Yeah, religions (oh I'm sorry, the people pretending to speak for their gods under the shield of their religions) do it too, which proves my previous point I made earlier in the thread:

Religion has, throughout history, sought to circumvent laws and exploit loopholes to poison the political system with its beliefs which are not grounded in reason and are defended against all reason.

[JamesG]

Seriously?  How could you write that without at least a half dozen smilies...

Anyway I give up. You are either purposefully evading or so completely partisan the "Bigger Picture" that is at issue here, so talking to you about it is a waste of time.

[JamesG]

Please be aware of ToS in this discussion.
I encourage healthy debate, but once people start throwing insults at each other I will step in.

Is throwing the "C word" considered an insult on Susan's?   

[KelsieJ]

Just the facts.

1) Tyranny, by definition, is something ONLY a government can perpetrate.

2) No one's rights were impinged. You have the right to say, think, and do whatever you want as long as it is legal - but you do NOT have the right to be sheltered from any harm that may come to you by saying, thinking or doing whatever it is you choose to do. THAT is the meaning of the First Amendment.

3) The Free Market spoke, and he stepped down, likely in a situation where the board asked for his resignation as opposed to firing him, but that is a RESULT of him exercising his First Amendment rights when neither the company he represented, or the market, supported his viewpoint.

Freedom of Speech does not equal Freedom of Repercussion.

[Hideyoshi]

Seriously?  How could you write that without at least a half dozen smilies...

Anyway I give up. You are either purposefully evading or so completely partisan the "Bigger Picture" that is at issue here, so talking to you about it is a waste of time.

Bigger picture? I have no interest in slippery slope fallacies.

[JamesG]

That is because you are naive.

Just the facts.
...
Freedom of Speech does not equal Freedom of Repercussion.

You do not have freedom of speech (or anything else) if you fear repercussion.  You'd think that transfolk would understand that FACT...

[Hideyoshi]

That is because you are naive.

No, because I don't foresee us being sent to internment camps by 'Tyrant' In Chief Obama because the public rallied against a bigoted CEO that one time.

You do not have freedom of speech (or anything else) if you fear repercussion.  You'd think that transfolk would understand that FACT...

This is the most inane thing you have said so far. 

Let's say I'm a CEO of a large business. People find out I donated $10,000 to the KKK. Are people justified in boycotting my business because of my racist views? Or are they suppressing my rights by not buying from me anymore? Is the business infringing on my rights in trying to convince me to resign because my racist views can and will hurt the bottom line? Are other companies taking away my constitutional rights by letting people know how much of a backwards racist I am?

People SHOULD be afraid of repercussions, and should NOT get away with saying racist or bigoted things.

[Ms Grace]

Time to cool off folks...