Mozilla CEO steps down amid gay marriage controversy

[Spider-Dan]

Mountain View, CA-based Mozilla, maker of the open-source Firefox browser, appointed a new CEO on March 24: Brendan Eich.  He's a Mozilla co-founder and the creator of JavaScript.  However, it came to light that in 2008, Eich contributed $1,000 to CA Proposition 8, the ballot initiative that sought to ban gay marriage in the state.

Upon Eich's hiring, there were some protests from the developer community.  Additionally, dating site OKCupid changed their landing page for Firefox browser users to a special page denouncing Eich's position and recommending that visitors use a different browser.  These protests culminated yesterday in Eich stepping down as CEO.

In the aftermath, I have seen some comments that Eich's free speech is being stifled, and that the supporters of SSM have become more tyrannical than those who would/did restrict their rights in the first place.  Unsurprisingly, I disagree.

To be clear: if Brendan Eich wants to support groups that wish to ban same-sex marriage, that is his right, in exactly the same sense that if he wants to support groups that promote white supremacy, or anti-semitism, or polygamy, or decriminalization of prostitution, that is also his right.  However, his right to express his support for such causes does not give him immunity to the free market consequences of his actions.

In much the same way that openly opposing interracial marriage was once perfectly acceptable but is now considered unacceptable bigotry, opposing same-sex marriage is rapidly approaching a point where it will be considered extreme.  Had Eich underwent the proverbial come-to-Jesus moment and issued a statement about his heartfelt change of mind on the topic and his regret for supporting such a discriminatory law, this would not have been an issue; the problem is that he appears to still believe that SSM should be illegal.  And that's just not going to fly.

Ultimately, Eich's problem is that he was 10 years too late.  In 2004, he would have been cheerfully welcomed into the fold with proud anti-SSM views, but in today's America, he's behind the social curve.

[Buddhagirl]

I've been following this one and agree 100% that all he had to do was apologize and say his views have changed in those years since his donation.

And, for the fuck of shit, I'm so tired of people thinking Freedom of Speech means the freedom to say whatever they want without ANY consequences.

[dolphins4life]

Wait a minute here, I actually support the legalization of prostitution.  Should I not tell people this for fear of being outcasted?

[Dave Gray]

And, for the fuck of shit, I'm so tired of people thinking Freedom of Speech means the freedom to say whatever they want without ANY consequences.

Damn straight.  If you want to have stupid positions and be in business, beware of the free market's evaluation of your freedom of speech.

[dolphins4life]

Am I stupid to favor the legalization of prostitution?

[Dave Gray]

Am I stupid to favor the legalization of prostitution?

No, I don't think so.

But if you openly praised this position and owned a business in the bible belt, don't be surprised if you faced backlash.

[Dolphster]

I've been following this one and agree 100% that all he had to do was apologize and say his views have changed in those years since his donation.

And, for the fuck of shit, I'm so tired of people thinking Freedom of Speech means the freedom to say whatever they want without ANY consequences.

Exactly.  I'm not sure why so many people fail to understand the simple concept that Freedom of Speech provides legal protection.  Legal protection is not the same thing as complete lack of accountability for saying and doing stupid things.  Freedom of speech might prevent a person from being prosecuted, but it doesn't protect a dumbass from getting fired (or other unpleasant consequence of dumbassitude)

[Buddhagirl]

Exactly.  I'm not sure why so many people fail to understand the simple concept that Freedom of Speech provides legal protection.  Legal protection is not the same thing as complete lack of accountability for saying and doing stupid things.  Freedom of speech might prevent a person from being prosecuted, but it doesn't protect a dumbass from getting fired (or other unpleasant consequence of dumbassitude)

I feel like there needs to be a class or something on this concept. It's the first thing dumbasses trot out to defend people being fired for saying or doing stupid shit.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

I support gay marriage.

But I do think that forcing him to resign for holding a position shared by the majority of voters in California has a stifling effect on free speech and exchange of ideas. 

No he isn't protected by the first amendment, but this PC run amok. 

[Spider-Dan]

Hoodie, to claim that the majority of voters in California are (present tense) against gay marriage (based on the last vote they took on it) is equivalent to claiming that the majority of voters in America would be in favor of re-electing George W. Bush if it were possible (based on the last vote they took on him).  Opinions change.

And as I stated before, there would not be a problem today with him having that position in 2008 if he renounced it now.  The problem is that he appears to maintain that position.

[pondwater]

Exactly.  I'm not sure why so many people fail to understand the simple concept that Freedom of Speech provides legal protection.  Legal protection is not the same thing as complete lack of accountability for saying and doing stupid things.  Freedom of speech might prevent a person from being prosecuted, but it doesn't protect a dumbass from getting fired (or other unpleasant consequence of dumbassitude)

What are the other consequences that you speak of? Getting fired is the only one that I can think of, and that's not because the employer actually disagrees with the position against gay marriage. It probably has mainly do with losing income. So what are the other consequences?

[Dave Gray]

So what are the other consequences?

Being disliked or having the free market reject you or your product.  This is especially true with famous people or people in the public eye with large corporations.  Even if you do keep your job, you can financially suffer because people choose to reject your product because they don't like you.

[Fau Teixeira]

But I do think that forcing him to resign for holding a position shared by the majority of voters in California has a stifling effect on free speech and exchange of ideas. 

No-one forced him to resign. the free market made it unpalatable for him to continue at his position. He could have taken the chick-fil-a approach .. said f you all .. and stayed. Blame the free market if you must assign force.

[Dave Gray]

This is especially true for markets where there are many other choices that are relatively the same.  For browsers or fast food, there's another comparable option just across the proverbial (or literal) street.

I don't find much difference between mozilla, opera, IE, or chrome....I have my preference, but they're all generally the same product.  So, if anyone gives the public a reason to choose one over another -- even something small, it's fair game.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Hoodie, to claim that the majority of voters in California are (present tense) against gay marriage (based on the last vote they took on it) is equivalent to claiming that the majority of voters in America would be in favor of re-electing George W. Bush if it were possible (based on the last vote they took on him).  Opinions change.

And as I stated before, there would not be a problem today with him having that position in 2008 if he renounced it now.  The problem is that he appears to maintain that position.

There may have been a some shift in the 5 years since, but opposing ssm is still a very mainstream opinion, it is not comparable to wanting to appeal the 13th amendment.  

But, okay to take your example, do you think it would be okay for a company to take the position we won't hire anyone who made a political donation to GWB?  Because that is what he did, he donated to a political cause.

How would you feel if a company in California adopted a policy of not hiring anyone who donated money NoOnProp8.com?

How about this.  It would be against the law to have a policy of refusing to hire blacks, but let's say Hoodie LLC had the following hiring policy, "We will not hire anyone who has ever donated money to: Obama, Jessie Jackson, UNCF, NAACP, Rainbow Coalition or Acorn."  You okay with that or would you claim that violates the CRA?  

If he had done more than just had a political position, different story.  Let say day one he declare that the company is ending benefits to same sex partners in any state where this would not violate the law.  Well then I would agree with the boycott to drive him out.