Thoughtcrime

[Xiahou]

Is it acceptable to force someone from their job for a political view? A political donation? A political vote?

Apparently so.

Brendan Eich, only recently appointed CEO of Mozilla, was forced to resign due to the firestorm over his 2008 donation of $1000 in favor of Prop8. He stated in a recent interview how he separates his personal beliefs from his job....

Mozilla has always worked according to principles of inclusiveness. It may be challenging for a CEO, but everyone in our community can have different beliefs about all sorts of things that may be in conflict. They leave them at the door when they come to work on the Mozilla mission. We are a broad, big, mission-based organization. It's not to say some of those other beliefs aren't as contributing to the open Web, but we will not succeed globally without being maximally inclusive by leaving exclusionary beliefs at the door. I've done that for 16 years. I've done open source for 20 years. I think my reputation is well-known. Mozilla.org was founded 16 years ago today. The open source went up on March 31.

I've always treated people as they come, I've worked with them, tried to get them into the project, I've been as fair and inclusive as anyone -- I think more. I intend to be even more so as CEO because I agree there's an obligation to reach out to people who for whatever reason are marginalized.

But that's not good enough. Nothing short of a public, full-throated disavowal of his personally held beliefs will prevent him from being black-listed.

"I asked him to just issue a statement that his personal, private beliefs remained the same about what a traditional family is, but that he recognized that we should not legislate morality and that those laws had a tangible negative effect on people," Catlin said. "Instead, he fell back to his defensive position and refuses to apologize for helping to fund a law that actively discriminated against his own employees and community."

People should be appalled by this. Perhaps Mozilla, when choosing it's new CEO, should have a checklist of hot-button political issues that you must be in favor of before you can be considered?

[rvg]

It's appalling and rampant. Especially when it's coming from a "diversity" crowd that appreciates all kinds of diversity except for diversity of opinion.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Surely that can't be legal? How can you sack somebody for supporting a democratic campaign?

[rvg]

Surely that can't be legal? How can you sack somebody for supporting a democratic campaign?

It's legal. Employers in at-will employment states can terminate employees for any reason or no reason whatsoever. California makes exceptions for stuff like personal vendetta, but that's about it.

[Beskar]

It's appalling and rampant. Especially when it's coming from a "diversity" crowd that appreciates all kinds of diversity except for diversity of opinion.

Exception applies more to 'bigotry' than 'diversity of opinion'.

You can have an opinion as long as it is not an asshat one.

[rvg]

Exception applies more to 'bigotry' than 'diversity of opinion'.

You can have an opinion as long as it is not an asshat one.

Wrong. You can have any opinion you want. No exceptions.

[Xiahou]

Exception applies more to 'bigotry' than 'diversity of opinion'.

You can have an opinion as long as it is not an asshat one.

Unless I'm missing something, he never even publicly expressed his opinion. Someone took the time to troll through the entire donors list (which is public information), found his name, and demanded he recant or be purged.

If, as CEO, he made public statements about his personal views on gay marriage, I think you'd be on better footing to make an issue of it. But this is not the case.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Meh. Storms and teacups.

As I see it, Mr Eich exercised his right to donate to political causes and others exercised their right to boycott Mozilla because they feel strongly about these political causes.

Or for a better write up, see: http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/30577.html

Turns out that his political beliefs effectively renders him unable to function in the capacity of CEO of an organisation that relies on support from lots of people who fear the consequences of those beliefs.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The public is allowed to have its opinion. If the company caves when facing public opinion, that is their choice. Sad choice, but theirs to make.

[Ironside]

Is it acceptable to force someone from their job for a political view? A political donation? A political vote?

Apparently so.

Brendan Eich, only recently appointed CEO of Mozilla, was forced to resign due to the firestorm over his 2008 donation of $1000 in favor of Prop8. He stated in a recent interview how he separates his personal beliefs from his job....

People should be appalled by this. Perhaps Mozilla, when choosing it's new CEO, should have a checklist of hot-button political issues that you must be in favor of before you can be considered?

Yes? Or at the very least, not publically oppose. Who could've guessed that having or getting a public persona would affect on what you can say and do in public?

Don't pretend that funding an opinion by proxy is in any way different than saying that opinion yourself. In fact it's in some ways stronger, since it means money talk instead of hot air. If I'm mr "Extremely Rich" and finance 50% of the Republican party, while publically voting Democrat, am I a Republican or Democrat?

A CEO is in many ways a public speaker of a company. That means that a notable opinion of the CEO have been met by, at the very least, a stamp of acceptance by the company. People can then point out their opinion about this acceptance. If they would be forced to accept that, it would be the thought crime you decry.

Private opinions vs professionalism. When do your personal opinion colour your actions when your professional opinion should officially be reversed? That's a fair question. And depends on the person. That means that there's no good absolute answer, so the good old crowd opinion becomes the driving force.

As for your starting questions. No, it's not right. But it's legal there and has been for a long time there. Do you honestly believe that a worker supporting gay rights 20 years ago could give financial support to that opinion and not risk his job? But now it's suddenly a thought crime to do the same thing, when you feel to be on the recieving end? Two wrongs doesn't make a right, that's true. But then you try to fix the error, not trying to pretend that only the first wrong is wrong and the second wrong was right all the time.

[Beskar]

Wrong. You can have any opinion you want. No exceptions.

We are talking about 'acceptable opinions' in a broad-sense in regards to a specific 'diversity' grouping. Which is different than an opinion full-stop. You attacked one of the far more open-minded groupings which only generally dislike discrimination-bigotry.

Not being a Christian makes your opinion invalid on Christendom to many Christians. Being Black makes your opinion invalid to the KKK. Et al.

[rvg]

We are talking about 'acceptable opinions' in a broad-sense in regards to a specific 'diversity' grouping...

When the aforementioned 'diversity grouping' hijacks the society at large, we begin to see the rise of thought police.
There are no unacceptable opinions in a free society. Period.

[Rhyfelwyr]

We are talking about 'acceptable opinions' in a broad-sense in regards to a specific 'diversity' grouping. Which is different than an opinion full-stop.

Indeed, the original proponents of the Anglosphere vision of free speech, whether they were the English Roundheads or the American Founding Fathers, would be horrified if they saw things like homosexuality being promoted in the public sphere.

This is the problem with free speech - it is always limited by what we see as being within the bounds of moral decency. "Just don't frighten the horses" as some people like to put it. For you, to be against homosexuality is offensive and thus not acceptable in the public sphere. For me, to be for it is offensive, and thus not acceptable in the public sphere.

Nobody has the moral high ground when it comes to limiting free speech - we all do it, and we are right to do so. For example, nobody (I hope) would say that somebody should be able to yell the particulars about his latest sexual encounter in the street - that is without the bounds of what free speech was ever intended for.

[Xiahou]

Do you honestly believe that a worker supporting gay rights 20 years ago could give financial support to that opinion and not risk his job?

Yes, I do.

But now it's suddenly a thought crime to do the same thing, when you feel to be on the recieving end? Two wrongs doesn't make a right, that's true. But then you try to fix the error, not trying to pretend that only the first wrong is wrong and the second wrong was right all the time.

You'd think the group that was the object of such societal exclusion and ostracism would think twice before doing the same to others. The gay marriage issue had a majority opposed to it (including our president) until just a few short years ago. Now holding that opinion is grounds for discrimination in their minds? Remember, he was given an out- asked to disavow his views on gay marriage. No one accused him of treating homosexuals differently at Mozilla- all accounts say he was extremely fair and inclusive. But, acting in conformity wasn't enough- he needed to think in conformity.

You'd think that Californians, in particular, would be reticent about blacklisting people based on their beliefs.

[Sir Moody]

Personally i have no problem with this - had he been forced out by the Government (either state or Federal) then I would have a problem but customers are completely able to voice their frustrations at a CEO for what ever reason - if the company chooses to listen to the customers then that's that.

They actually stuck by him for quite a bit until Ok Cupid stuck the knife in (they prompted Mozilla users to change browser in order to use Ok Cupid) at which point they decided it was hurting the company to keep him on... probably a good decision

[Montmorency]

But, acting in conformity wasn't enough- he needed to think in conformity.

He didn't act in conformity. Quite the opposite in fact.

You'd think the group that was the object of such societal exclusion and ostracism would think twice before doing the same to others.

You'd think the Jews would have just forgiven the Nazis once WW2 ended and not pressed the issue by hunting them down...

For example, nobody (I hope) would say that somebody should be able to yell the particulars about his latest sexual encounter in the street - that is without the bounds of what free speech was ever intended for.

Yelling anything is a public disturbance...

[Montmorency]

Something also missed by the label "Thoughtcrime": there is no such thing (yet).

To speak is an action. To write is an action.

All crimes are actions at the moment. Don't get ahead of yourself.

[Xiahou]

Personally i have no problem with this - had he been forced out by the Government (either state or Federal) then I would have a problem but customers are completely able to voice their frustrations at a CEO for what ever reason - if the company chooses to listen to the customers then that's that.

They actually stuck by him for quite a bit until Ok Cupid stuck the knife in (they prompted Mozilla users to change browser in order to use Ok Cupid) at which point they decided it was hurting the company to keep him on... probably a good decision

You're missing my point. Of course they're allowed to do that. I'm highlighting the hypocrisy in blacklisting someone for their views in the name of inclusiveness. It's an Orwellian mindset. "All views are welcome- as long as they agree with us."

[Montmorency]

All views are welcome- as long as they agree with us."

'All views are welcome as long as they are not directly opposite to ours' would be a better representation.

You speak as though this is a strange perspective - it's really not. I guarantee you that not a single person on Earth would welcome someone with opposite views.

E.g. 'I hate murder.'

'Murder is awesome, and you're wrong for hating it.'

'Let's agree to disagree.'

^^^Never happens.

[Ironside]

Yes, I do.

In that case, you're either very naive, or the opposers of gay marriage are way more aggressive nowadays.
A teacher got fired here. A school administrator here.
Catholics seems to be most aggressive against it.

You'd think the group that was the object of such societal exclusion and ostracism would think twice before doing the same to others.

History teaches us that they learn the opposite. They know how effective it was against them.

The gay marriage issue had a majority opposed to it (including our president) until just a few short years ago. Now holding that opinion is grounds for discrimination in their minds? Remember, he was given an out- asked to disavow his views on gay marriage. No one accused him of treating homosexuals differently at Mozilla- all accounts say he was extremely fair and inclusive. But, acting in conformity wasn't enough- he needed to think in conformity.

Holding an opinion strongly enough to financiallly support it (making it your public opinion and not your private one) as a public person and as a representative of company means that people are allowed to boycot that company. Agreed? That it has gotten enough traction to be a successful boycot doesn't change that. Social activism is one of the main ways to create change. Good or bad? Depends on if you like the change or not.

Giving money counts as an act. He was asked if he had changed his mind on that act. He said no. He certainly did not act in conformity. What you talk about is active workplace discrimination and that is something else.

If they start to prevent him to get any job, then it starts to become like the Hollywood blacklisting. It's a huge difference between being a representative in a company and simply working for the company.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I think that this is ok, if your status as a proponent of a view is in opposition to the political view of the company that you head. His political donation has caused a furor which will cost the company money. As a company is I interested in making money, if the head of the company is causing you to lose money purely from his personality or beliefs, there will be obvious pressure

The company that I work for now is Roman Catholic. If our CEO lived a lifestyle in opposition to church teachings; If she started donating money to NARAL we would probably lose business. If the company was big enough it would be a big deal.

Either way, there is no such thing as "forced resignation". If you are forced to resign you are either terminated or you quit. This situation sounds like a financial dilemna met an honorable CEO who believed in the company and didnt want to cause it damage. A company has to be very careful about threatening a hostile work environment in order to force you to resign. And if they fire you for a personal belief, they will be sued.

I am personally against gay marriage, I think it is a garbage political position to push for it, but companies are out there to make money, so this is a real issue for them if consumers or investors balk. Don't like it? Start your own company and don't court crappy investors.

[HoreTore]

So...

It's your opinion that the government should decide whether or not a company can fire employees, Xiahou?

[rvg]

It's your opinion that the government should decide whether or not a company can fire employees, Xiahou?

That's not at all what he's saying. He's just calling out the hypocrisy of the liberal left.

[HoreTore]

That's not at all what he's saying. He's just calling out the hypocrisy of the liberal left.

So it's your opinion that the company was in the right in firing this guy then?

[Fisherking]

Oh, the foundation was completely within its rights. He was pressured but not fired.

The major problem is that they bent to the wishes of a small militant minority and their allies upset with a defeated enemy and a not so large political donation.

Now apparently it has been taken up by a much larger segment of the population. Those upset by the intolerance displayed as well as the anti-gay types.

Not a move that showed a lot of acumen.

https://www.facebook.com/mozilla

The Washington Post criticized them for the hypocrisy of the move, as well as other major outlets.

Not very good news for the organization as a whole.

It is very good news for IE and Google Chrome, however.

edit: Seems like a Duck Dynasty replay.

[HoreTore]

It is very good news for IE and Google Chrome, however.

....because firing the Mozilla CEO is going to make IE less sucky...?

[Fisherking]

....because firing the Mozilla CEO is going to make IE less sucky...?

No, because lots of people are uninstalling and moving to another browser, which is what they were trying to avoid when pressured by the dating site that brought all this on.

[Strike For The South]

But I thought we liked right to work states?

lololololololololol

[Fisherking]

But I thought we liked right to work states?

lololololololololol

Oh?

Are you a dues paying member of the CEO’s Union?

[Fisherking]

But I thought we liked right to work states?

lololololololololol

Oh?

Are you a dues paying member of the CEO’s Union?