
Brendan Eich Steps Down as Mozilla CEO - platz
https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/03/brendan-eich-steps-down-as-mozilla-ceo/
======
DangerousPie
I am a strong supporter of gay marriage, but I have to say that I find this
very unfortunate and worrying. Apparently many Mozilla supporters seem to
think it is okay to bully a qualified person out of his job only for his
political views, even if they had absolutely no effect on his qualification or
his actions on the job.

I can't help but feel like this campaign has done a lot more harm to him than
his $1000 donation could have ever done to anyone.

~~~
dopamean
I generally agree with you but I think the problem here is that being against
gay marriage is more than just a "political view." Being for low taxes is a
political view. Being for smaller government is a political view. Believing a
certain group of people don't deserve to live their lives like other simply
because of who they love is not a political view. It reads as extremely
hateful and that makes people uncomfortable. I would be uncomfortable if the
head of the company I worked for felt that way.

~~~
andrewpi
So Barack Obama, the President of the US, was against gay marriage in 2008;
I'm confused as to why he gets a pass here, but the head of Mozilla doesn't?

~~~
twoodfin
I can understand why he gets a pass: He probably was only publicly against it
in 2008 in order to win an election, and when it was politically convenient he
had a "change of heart" and has repented.

What I can't understand is why _anyone_ who espouses the view that opposition
to gay marriage is akin to the most heinous racial bigotry could possibly have
voted for Barack Obama in 2008. I'm a pretty reliable GOP voter, but I
wouldn't think twice about voting for a Democrat for president if the
Republican candidate expressed support for segregation! I'd vote for a third
party if they both did.

My point is that it's basically free to express outrage at Eich. Six years ago
(when Eich actually made his donation), a lot of folks here and at Mozilla who
are so worked up about this issue now were not so unforgiving about it when it
came to getting "their guy" in the White House.

~~~
cek994
Opposing something right because it's politically convenient isn't any more
ethically defensible than opposing something you truly disagree with. You, as
liberals tend to do, are giving Obama a pass -- he can't _not_ do the right
thing, by your logic.

I suspect that many Republicans nominally against gay marriage are privately
for it, but the political ramifications for saying so would be much graver for
an older, whiter and more religious constituency. Do we give them a pass, too?

~~~
twoodfin
Politicians say one thing while believing something else all the time. It's
almost a qualification for the job.

I don't care about that (much). 'Twas always thus...

I'm pointing out that there are surely things 2008 Candidate Obama could have
said and positions he could have taken that would have disqualified him in the
eyes of many of the folks here, _even if they suspected he didn 't really mean
them_. I'd like to hope some of those would include expressing support for
racial segregation or opposing interracial marriage. But many in this
discussion are claiming that BE's 2008 opposition to gay marriage is morally
indistinguishable from support for racial segregation or opposition to
interracial marriage, and that he should be judged accordingly. Then how can
they square that with a vote for Senator Obama in 2008?

The analogy with the Civil Rights Movement to end racial discrimination
absolutely has some force behind it, but I don't think making that analogy
ends the debate over how to treat folks on the other side.

------
phillmv
From the recode recap - [http://recode.net/2014/04/03/mozilla-co-founder-
brendan-eich...](http://recode.net/2014/04/03/mozilla-co-founder-brendan-eich-
resigns-as-ceo-and-also-from-foundation-board/)

>“It’s clear that Brendan cannot lead Mozilla in this setting,” said Baker,
who added that she would not and could not speak for Eich. “The ability to
lead — particularly for the CEO — is fundamental to the role and that is not
possible here.”

The most damning aspect of this was their a) inability to predict this would
be an issue and b) their inability to deal with it once it did.

All he had to do was lie and say "I understand how my activities can be seen
as divisive and wrong and inconsistent with my commitment to upholding the
diverse values underpinning the Mozilla community and I apologize for my
behaviour at the time. I will do everything in my power to make up for it and
I hope the community can judge me based me on my record from this point
onwards".

Then, find ways to anonymously engage in whatever political causes he
supports, or wait till he's no longer CEO.

The tone deafness of his last interview was kind of the last straw.

~~~
nostrademons
It speaks a lot to his integrity that he didn't. Would you rather have a CEO
who says one thing in public and then goes and does another thing
surreptitiously, or one who stands up for his beliefs even when they're
unpopular?

~~~
danpalmer
I don't think 'integrity' in the face of an opinion that is becoming more and
more unacceptable to hold in our culture is a good thing. Changing your views,
and admitting you were wrong is the best thing you can do.

~~~
nostrademons
This line of reasoning is very troubling to me, because 20 years ago it was
pretty much unacceptable in the U.S. to hold the opinion that gays were
entitled to full legal rights, let alone the ability to marry. That changed
only because some very courageous people stuck their neck out, weathered all
the flack and negative personal repercussions towards themselves, and
gradually made the point of "Why not?"

I fully support gay marriage and I personally think Brendan is on the wrong
side of this issue, but I also fully support the right of people to hold their
own opinions, even when other people find them unpopular. If they weren't
allowed to hold unpopular opinions, then pretty much all the social progress
we made in the last century - racial equality, feminism, gay rights, etc. -
would never have happened.

~~~
HillRat
There's two sides to that -- the first is that, yes, he _absolutely_ has the
right to hold _any_ opinion he wants to, no matter how noxious I or others may
find them. To paraphrase Hall on Voltaire, I'll defend to the death their
right to be assholes. (Full disclosure: pro- gay marriage, anti-Prop 8, not a
CA resident, so doesn't really affect me.)

On the other hand, there's no absolute right to be a public-facing CEO, and
it's not unreasonable for the public to name-and-shame companies for their
stances on public issues and the people they choose as corporate leaders.

In some cases, this means right-wing activists boycotting and gay-marriage
advocates praising Target for same-sex wedding registry ads; in others, it's
blue-staters deciding not to eat at Chik-Fil-A for its right-wing political
donations, and red-staters buying that 24-piece combo for the exact same
reason. Personally, I do think that Eich did all the right things as far as
policy and PR goes, and I'm actually a bit sorry that he's stepping down.

I think that the real sin here was not his political donations, it was the
fact that he and MoCo didn't make at least cursory efforts to wargame out the
possible PR issues that they ran into, which meant they were unprepared to
deal with the firestorms.

It's obvious that a significant number of board members weren't happy with
Eich's promotion on strategic grounds, and the Prop 8 issue was just the icing
on the big poisonous cake of bad publicity. Generally speaking, if you're the
CEO, the _company_ should be in the news, not you, and Eich was getting
hammered left and right.

~~~
jbooth
To piggyback, there's an additional difference between being a public-facing
CEO of, say, McDonald's, Exxon or Apple, and being the public-facing CEO of a
non-profit which exists due to the donations of primarily liberal and
libertarian internet people. The prior case might cost them a little revenue
due to boycotts but if the person's effective, you can make a case for
'private views' and 'shareholder value'. When your whole company is an
activist platform, it's a bit harder to say that political positions of the
CEO don't matter.

~~~
wwweston
> When your whole company is an activist platform, it's a bit harder to say
> that political positions of the CEO don't matter.

I see the point that it's different for a non-profit than it might be for a
for-profit, but I'd also think differences in primary focus matter too.

If I was looking at the conversation over the last week as a representative,
I'd suppose that Mozilla is more of an LGBT standard-bearer than an open-web
advocacy group.

One could argue that's a ridiculously narrow window to focus on, and that's
probably correct, but it's no more narrow a focus than that turned on Eich's
donations vs the whole of his behavior and what he had to offer as CEO.

------
waterfowl
As a gay man this makes me sad.

Eich gave a relatively small amount of money to a cause that happened to be
supported by a majority of voters at the time(disclosure: I am gay, I don't
care). For the first ~200 years of America NO ONE supported gay marriage
beyond fringe gay groups. 20 years ago a celebrated sitting Democratic
president signed DOMA. It was a long time ago and not a lot of money and
Eich's (edit: technical)contributions outweigh his political opinions. "Not
supporting marriage equality" should not be an "unacceptable" opinion. Why
can't we respect people's opinions? How is this any different from railroading
a staunch Catholic or Mormon or Muslim out of an organization(because if you
say "god told me to feel this way" it turns into a protected class). I'd be
delighted to work with him, because I don't tend to work with people on
software projects with their political views in mind. It just bums me out when
people capitulate to angry mobs, in either direction(just last week an
organization capitulated to an anti gay agenda...World Vision, and that made
me sad too).

Edit again: Why don't all you folks put your money where your mouth is and
refactor all of your JS code to dart or something, just so you don't have to
be tainted by evil Eich.

------
xaa
My father-in-law is a high-level official in the "Alliance Defending Freedom",
which is essentially the conservative counterpart to the ACLU, providing legal
advice to conservative causes.

For years, he's been telling me about the "gay liberal agenda", which, to him,
was not just about promoting gay rights, but also about silencing any freedom
of speech advocating opposing viewpoints. I always pooh-poohed him and gently
asserted that he was on the wrong side of history.

Now, I think he's right. That someone can be ousted from their job because of
privately held opinions and personal donations is extremely scary to me -- and
I'm in favor of gay rights and gay marriage. You can't correct injustice and
intolerance with more injustice and intolerance.

~~~
ewoodrich
I fail to see how a CEO facing criticism for personal political contributions
to be evidence of some sort of "gay liberal agenda". He has every right to
donate to Prop 8 or whatever cause he likes. He has every right to vocally
advocate his position.

He does _not_ have a right to be the public facing chief executive of a
private organization. I would see no issue with a pro-gay rights CEO being
forced to leave Hobby Lobby or something of that nature. It's not censorship
to be unable to represent an organization that is expected to have a certain
political/social/cultural alignment.

~~~
xaa
I have a problem with the very idea that a mostly apolitical organization like
Mozilla should have a sweeping political/social/cultural alignment.

If Eich were opposed to net neutrality, or against open internet standards,
etc, _those_ would be damning beliefs for someone in the Mozilla CEO spot. Gay
rights, however, have nothing whatsoever to do with Mozilla. (I agree with you
that Hobby Lobby would fire a pro-gay-rights CEO, but we probably shouldn't be
taking lessons on reasonable behavior from Hobby Lobby.)

If Mozilla _does_ represent any kind of broad social alignment, I would hope
that it would be one in favor of diversity of opinion and free speech.

~~~
ubernostrum
_free speech_

Which includes the right of others to criticize your speech.

If I get up on a soapbox and preach something you don't agree with, so you get
up on a soapbox of your own and preach your disagreement, I am not being
persecuted or denied my freedom. Nor am I being persecuted or denied my
freedom if your arguments convince a majority of people to disagree with or
choose not to associate with me.

This is, ironically, a fundamentally _conservative_ position, that maximizing
individual rights to speak up is what produces the best results, by causing
the best ideas/most persuasive arguments to prevail.

~~~
notdonspaulding
> This is, ironically, a fundamentally _conservative_ position

Isn't it much more a libertarian position? Christopher Hitchens was a
vociferous supporter of 1st Amendment rights, but you'd hardly call him a
conservative.

------
Oculus
I'm not sure how I feel about this one.

On the one hand, Brendan Eich had some beliefs that were against Mozilla's
core values, but on the other hand we just showed that when a mob on the
Internet wants something - they get it. It's scary because this mob has global
reach, unlimited power, but isn't always right.

~~~
matthewmacleod
_on the other hand we just showed that when a mob on the Internet wants
something - they get it._

I don't think that this follows. In this particular case, someone was promoted
to a role which many felt was incompatible with his personal views; they made
that known, and the person in question stepped down. That's kind of how things
should work in a community enterprise.

That said, I understand he's received wildly disproportionate abuse, like
death threats. That's totally unacceptable, and frankly I'm surprised that
anybody feels that strongly about the issue.

~~~
Borogove
Were there actually threats? I just googled "Brendan Eich threat" and didn't
see anything relevant.

~~~
azakai
There was at least one mozilla employee that reported on their blog that they
received death threats when they blogged about support for the new CEO
(despite initially conflicting feelings, the blogger is gay). I'm not linking
to the blog because they might end up getting more abuse.

When controversial stuff like this happens, it is sadly common to receive
death threats on the internet. Given that employees merely voicing support
received death threats, I would be surprised if the CEO did not receive such
things as well.

~~~
bruceb
Why would you not link to it? It is a public blog it is meant to be read.
Respectful your point makes no logically sense. You think the HN crowd is the
youtube crowd? Is it this one: [http://incisive.nu/2014/thinking-about-
mozilla/](http://incisive.nu/2014/thinking-about-mozilla/)

~~~
azakai
I was talking about a different blogpost actually.

While I agree with you that the HN crowd is not YouTube, there are still many
people reading this and sharing with others etc., and since the blogger I am
talking about has already been harassed, I don't see a point in drawing more
attention there. It doesn't help our discussion anyhow, there are only
downsides.

------
Beliavsky
From the article: "We have employees with a wide diversity of views. Our
culture of openness extends to encouraging staff and community to share their
beliefs and opinions in public."

Clearly people with socially conservative views are not welcome at Mozilla.

~~~
_t5yy
"any opinion is ok, as long as you're not conservative" I used to get this
constantly in HS and now in college. This type of thinking is extremely toxic
and I think can be very damaging for an institutions reputation. Mozilla is no
longer about "openness" it's now about a much more generic liberal world view.

~~~
kylemaxwell
Bullshit. Any opinion is okay but if you are actively working to remove
existing rights from other people, you can expect opprobrium. This applies
especially when leading an organization with values like Mozilla's.

~~~
hackinthebochs
>but if you are actively working to remove existing rights from other people

How is opposing _redefining_ marriage (in the context of law) working to
remove _existing_ rights of people? Its framed in terms of removing
rights/civil rights because it suits the cause. But this characterization is
not supported by a dispassionate reading of the issue here.

~~~
wpietri
Untrue. If you read Judge Walker's decision against Prop 8, or the recent
judgment against the Michigan Marriage Amendment, you'll see that both Prop 8
and the MMA failed because they violate the 14th Amendment's grant of equal
protection:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause)

In particular, both Prop 8 and the MMA failed to meet the Rational Basis test:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_basis_review](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_basis_review)

That is, both courts found that there was no rational basis for keeping gay
people from getting married. The rationales offered by proponents didn't
measure up.

~~~
fakeanon
>All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State
wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor
shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Proposition 8: Section I. Title

    
    
            This measure shall be known and may be cited as the "California Marriage Protection Act."
    
        Section 2. Article I. Section 7.5 is added to the California Constitution, to read:
    
            Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
    

Which part of this denies equal protection to someone under the laws?

~~~
wpietri
The part where gay people are treated as not as good as straight people. The
state has a legitimate interest in promoting marriage. Basically, because
families. If you want to exclude gay people from that, you can't just presume
they're inferior. You have to demonstrate it.

------
gum_ina_package
I honestly feel like Brendan is the victim here. He might have religious or
moral views on gay marriage that some of us don't agree with, but being forced
to step down as CEO because of those views... well that's something I don't
think any of his critics should be proud of.

~~~
macspoofing
On the other hand, those that didn't agree with those views were free to
boycott and criticize Mozilla. Mozilla Foundation was also free to live with
those consequences or decide that they didn't want their brand to be
associated or muddled by its CEO's accidentally public position on a very
sensitive topic. My view: It's a shame that Eich decided to stand his ground
on this issue. It's a real shame that he felt so strongly about his position
that he sacrificed his job for it. I wish he would have found something more
important to stand his ground over.

~~~
gum_ina_package
More important than his morality and/or religious views?

~~~
macspoofing
Yes, it's a real shame that he sees support for gay-marriage as an affront to
his moral or religious values.

------
Touche
This really saddens me.

It is a black-mark on the gay rights movement.

Eich made a mistake when he supported prop 8. History will clearly show this,
like history has shown those who opposed interracial marriage were wrong.

Being on the right-side of history isn't about stomping out those who opposed
you when you finally win. It's not about retribution for past slights.

Did we learn nothing from Nelson Mandela?

~~~
camus2
> Eich made a mistake when he supported prop 8

Nothing proves that Eich think he did make a mistake. He never apologized for
that and refused to talk about it.I'm sure he would not need to resign if he
did apologize. People make mistakes, and most people will forgive if an
apology is issued.

~~~
Touche
It doesn't matter what Eich thinks. History isn't going to reverse course so
there's no need for those who are wrong to fall to their knees and beg for
forgiveness. Being graceful in victory is about letting those who opposed you
to get away with their mistake.

~~~
OpieCunningham
How many lives need to be ruined before an oppressed community can fight back?
Sainthood should not be a bar that everyone must meet in order to avoid being
labeled with a black mark. This guy attacked a large group of people and that
group defended itself by explaining their displeasure at his recent privilege.
He then suffered the consequence of having his privilege removed. Good.

~~~
blisterpeanuts
@OpieCunningham - _How many lives need to be ruined..._

That's a great question, actually. How many lives _were_ ruined by Prop 8?
(which, by the way, was overturned by the Supreme Court)

Are there gay people in jail in California as a result of Prop 8? Are there
broken marriages? Was there an increase in anti-gay violence? Not that I've
heard of.

Prop 8, which apparently very few people seem to know (or care), was about
preventing _legal recognition_ of same-sex marriages, not about preventing
those marriages per se. Legal recognition means next-of-kin and hospital
visitation rights and some taxation differences. Really, other than that,
people could perfectly well exchange vows and call themselves married, and the
state has no authority to change this.

~~~
OpieCunningham
Clearly it is a rhetorical question - Prop 8 was discrimination - how many
people need to be discriminated against in order for a defense to be mounted?
The minimum answer is 1. The larger the answer the larger the defense.

If the law had not been overturned, the answer would, by definition of the
law, be far greater than 0. If you propose that the actual answer was 0 before
the law was overturned, I don't believe that - how many partners were refused
next-of-kin, hospital visitation rights and some taxation benefits? More than
0 I would estimate. Is Eich in jail? Was his marriage broken up? Did anyone
physically attack him? No. He lost the privilege of being a CEO.

------
simon_
To summarize a sentiment I see underlying some of the "conservative" positions
on HN on Eich: all of us who are pro gay marriage (me very much included[0])
might want to think pretty carefully about the political culture we want to
create.

Regardless of how exceptional and crystal-clear this moral issue is, if we
accept personal attacks against political opponents, we are clearly "upping
the ante" and creating a huge chilling effect against honest dialogue.
Somewhere in the vicinity of 50% of the US holds the immoral view here, and if
we believe they deserve shunning and serious personal consequences, then we
are... well, pretty aggressive.

Even if aggression is warranted, are we sure we want a culture tolerant of
this much political aggression? You might be in the wrong 50% next time, and
unfortunately there may not be a way to create a culture tolerant of
aggression only by those who are morally right / agree with us.

Clearly none of Eich's fundamental rights are violated here, but that still
doesn't mean we should want to "go there".

[0] You can see from the very high volume of statements like this how scared
people are to be associated with the wrong side here.

~~~
ralfd
I agree with you. I recently read on reddit a report by someone who was fired
by his conservative company because he had an Obama decal on his car and found
that incredibly crazy and toxic. This is now from the other side.

------
chrismonsanto
My #1 question -- is Eich returning to CTO, another position, or quitting
altogether?

All in all, I think this was a pragmatic move. I am not a fan of this "CEO =
literally the company" logic, though. I saw no reason to believe that he would
use Mozilla to further an anti-gay agenda.

~~~
dopamean
> I saw no reason to believe that he would use Mozilla to further an anti-gay
> agenda.

I agree. However, it's a little weird if you say you are a company who values
diversity and different lifestyles but you have a CEO who is openly against a
particular group of people. That kind of contradiction at the very top makes
things weird.

~~~
facepalm
Has he ever said anything against gays? Being opposed to gay marriage is not
the same as being opposed to gays.

~~~
quaunaut
Yes it is. Lets not make useless differences here, it is. To think there isn't
is somehow thinking someone having fewer rights than you do is still legally
equal to you.

~~~
marknutter
Does being against polygamist marriages make you against polygamists?

------
programminggeek
"We have employees with a wide diversity of views. Our culture of openness
extends to encouraging staff and community to share their beliefs and opinions
in public. This is meant to distinguish Mozilla from most organizations and
hold us to a higher standard. But this time we failed to listen, to engage,
and to be guided by our community."

The irony is when Brendan Eich shared his belief in public, he was forced out
of his job. Yay openness. It's really awesome until someone says or believes
in something you don't agree with. Then, get the pitchforks.

------
zobzu
"Congrats" \- All that makes me feel personally is that the people who pushed
for this are extremists as well.

I don't know if that's a good move by Mozilla as well, although my guess is
that it's a personal move from Eich who couldn't handle the pressure and the
death threats (which, to be honest, I understand - even if some will say a CEO
is supposed to be stronger than that).

~~~
toyg
_> the people who pushed for this are extremists as well._

Suffragettes were extremists. Worker-rights supporters were extremists. Gandhi
was an extremist. M. L. King Jr. was an extremist. Sans-culottes were
extremists.

In the history of civilisation, there are winners and there are losers, and
when the revelation of who is who eventually comes, it can be a bit ugly to
watch.

~~~
rjknight
This is true. I've always liked the distinction made here:
[http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbli...](http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2007/11/the-
government-.html) between extremism and fanaticism. Extremists are those with
views beyond the mainstream, and fanatics are those with views that,
mainstream or otherwise, are so strongly held that they cannot accept
disagreement.

------
rjknight
I feel bad about this because several good people did defend the _principle_
that an employee's personal views should be allowed to remain purely personal,
that we should be able to get along in society even with those who we are
vehemently opposed to in the political sphere.

I worry that this will now be seen as a defeat for that principle, as proof
that your political views _will_ be held against you if you become prominent
enough, and given the data trails that we all leave behind us, that could get
ugly. Some (but not all!) of the people who campaigned for him to quit were
themselves dismissive of this principle, and if they 'won' then I can't really
say I'm happy about it.

EDIT: clarity

------
sylvinus
Extremely saddened by this. I hope "activists" with misguided anger will
realize the web is worse off today than it was yesterday.

Why I supported him as CEO:
[https://medium.com/p/5f43d452bd89](https://medium.com/p/5f43d452bd89)

------
izacus
So what's the next step at Mozilla? Going through all department heads and
eliminating those that are conservative cristians as well? Also those that
don't agree with Obamacare?

Considering I've lived in a socialistic country where political party you
belonged to was critical to attaining any leadership position... I'd really
rather not return to that world. It was toxic, inefficient and downright
unfair. Politics, religion and personal beliefs shoud NOT be a factor when
choosing a person for position at a company.

~~~
camus2
> Going through all department heads and eliminating those that are
> conservative cristians as well?

It has nothing to do with being a conservative christian.

> Considering I've lived in a socialistic country where political party you
> belonged to was critical to attaining any leadership position

i'm sure this country wasnt gay friendly either...was it?

------
gum_ina_package
No one should feel victorious or good about the outcome of this thing. An
individual, who apparently incredibly qualified and talent enough to lead an
org like Mozilla, was forced to step down because of his socio-political
views. No allegations of discrimination or misconduct on his part were made,
but because he donated $1K to a cause that goes against public opinion he is
forced out. What if his alleged opposition towards gay marriage (I say alleged
because we don't really know why he donated $1K) was due to religious or moral
convictions? As long as he didn't discriminate in the workplace, who's the
victim here?

------
blisterpeanuts
This outcome makes me sad. Although I support legally recognized gay marriage
with all the accompanying benefits such as hospital visitation rights and
next-of-kin status (arguably these are the two real benefits), I most
emphatically do not support the political correctness attacks on Mozilla's co-
founder.

Mozilla and the open source community have been gravely hurt by this move. The
witch hunt to oust Eich from Mozilla was not just unfair, it was a travesty.
He co-founded Mozilla and created some of the key technologies in Mozilla
products.

I am much less inclined to support Mozilla monetarily or in any other capacity
from this point on. Call me a hypocrite, call me whatever you like, but I feel
that strongly. This guy should not have been treated this way.

What's more, I suspect that were he a white female or a black person or an
Asian instead of a white male, the voices of hate would have been more muted.
It's much harder to criticize a person "of color" or a female in this
politically correct era, out of fear of being called out as a hypocrite. Which
I believe them to be, anyway.

This has done nothing to improve the lot of gay Americans; in fact, it is a
sorry blot on the history of gay rights and decent people of whatever sexual
orientation will ultimately distance themselves from it. Mob rule is nothing
to be proud of.

~~~
mindslight
> _I am much less inclined to support Mozilla monetarily or in any other
> capacity from this point on. Call me a hypocrite, call me whatever you like,
> but I feel that strongly. This guy should not have been treated this way._

There were many more saying they would stop supporting Mozilla if he
_remained_ CEO. Brendan Eich is a victim not of Mozilla, but of the
controversy-generating journalism industry. Keep supporting efforts for an
open web and make sure you're running Adblock to avoid funding these
parasites.

------
chollida1
Wow, good for Brendan for putting the company ahead of himself.

I didn't notice if it said what Brendan's new role would be. I hope he
continues to act as a defacto CTO and that the community will allow him to
continue in this role as he's proven that he's more than capable of doing so.

This whole ordeal reminds me of the Steve Jobs parable about the janitor and
VP. I guess the take away is that a rank and file employee can have what ever
political beliefs they want, but once you become the CEO, there are certain
beliefs that you just can not have anymore.

"Jobs imagines his garbage regularly not being emptied in his office, and when
he asks the janitor why, he gets an excuse: The locks have been changed, and
the janitor doesn’t have a key. This is an acceptable excuse coming from
someone who empties trash bins for a living. The janitor gets to explain why
something went wrong. Senior people do not. “When you’re the janitor,” Jobs
has repeatedly told incoming VPs, “reasons matter.” He continues: “Somewhere
between the janitor and the CEO, reasons stop mattering.” That “Rubicon,” he
has said, “is crossed when you become a VP."

~~~
orik
He left the foundation board also. If anything I think he's going to be
keeping his head low for a bit, internally and in the press.

------
michaelsbradley
I'm saddened by this development... not terribly surprised, but saddened to
the point that I got a sick feeling in my stomach when I read the headline.

In all seriousness, should this be seen as a kind of warning/signal? That is,
if you take the moral teachings of your church seriously enough to act on them
in the context of democratic processes and/or public discourse, then you need
not aspire to, apply for or expect to hold on to a publicly visible secular
job, such as CEO of a corporation.

~~~
jcromartie
There is no separation. Secular vs. sacred is an artificial divide, because
every action has consequences in reality. Mr. Eich here did not simply _take
seriously_ some moral warnings, he acted on them in the form of donations to
political organizations which worked to enact laws which affect real people's
real lives.

When your job involves leadership of a large publicly visible organization,
you are going to want to be on the right side of history slightly in advance
of the people under you.

Everybody and everything is connected, and it's not just a matter of your sect
vs another. Being at the head of a large organization means having a massive
pyramid of people under you, supporting you. That pyramid is composed of an
increasingly diverse group of people. It used to be almost entirely white men
(imagine IBM or any other major corporation 50 years ago). Now, look at an
organization like Mozilla, supported by legions of Internet-connected hackers
with a staggeringly diverse range of views on social matters, with one in
common: openness and inclusiveness.

You cannot expect a stable platform to lead from if an increasing number of
the people who support you find your views that repulsive.

You almost sound like you think that someone _owes_ this guy a CEO job? He
could easily find a leadership position with a group composed of people who
could support him based on his views.

~~~
michaelsbradley
I said nothing about him being owed a job, nor did I mention anything about a
separation.

In fact, the "everything is connected" principle is exactly what would
motivate, say, a serious-minded Catholic to vote, donate and set public
example in such a way as to promote the Catholic Church's social and moral
doctrines. That is to say, "everything is connected; these aren't just truths
for me, but truths and norms that deviated from on large scales will lead to
societal decay, proliferation of evil, and everyone will suffer all the more.
Therefore I will act, vote and speak publicly so as to see these truths
reflected in laws and policies that will affect society around me, in my own
time and for generations to come."

------
rdl
I think the big takeaway from all this will be an increase in anonymous
contributions in politics. We've seen this already at the SuperPAC level
(where the goal is mainly to contribute huge amounts of money, more so than
anonymity), but this might bring it down to the grassroots contributor.

I'm pretty open about RKBA/2A issues, and donate a small amount of money to
things like SAF, but that's not a _hugely_ controversial issue.

Pro-MAPS/LEAP/etc. (ending the drug war) could be controversial, but much less
so from the "the drug war is racist and ineffective and should be replaced
with harm reduction" perspective, vs. "drugs are great!"

If I were anti-abortion in Silicon Valley, or anti-gay, or anti-immigration,
or anything else which were deeply unpopular in the majority of the community,
there's no way I'd want any record of my contributions now. In other
communities, the inverse views would be criticized.

When the donations aren't tax-deductible, or where the deduction isn't
significant, I guess I can see people moving to fully anonymous contributions.
Making viral content, anonymous financial contributions, advertising purchases
online in small enough amounts that they can be made with throwaway payment
instruments and nothing really linking them, etc. Anonymously funding things
like an iOS game which happens to include a political message -- is that
advertising? etc.

------
haberman
Really torn about this. On one hand it seemed pretty clear that Brendan was
not letting these views carry over into his professional life. On the other
hand, using his power (in this case, money) to actively stand against equality
makes him, in my mind, an active and willing participant in the overall power
structure that denies and marginalizes gay people. If I were gay I can imagine
that being a bitter pill to swallow from someone who is the head of an
organization that I worked for or supported. And likely not a great match for
an organization that specifically prides itself on inclusiveness.

~~~
pbiggar
Congrats, this is possibly the best comment in the entire thread. Issues like
this are rarely black and white, and this is grayer than most.

As a former Mozillian, I'm frustrated that a great person to lead Mozilla held
such destructive views about other human beings. Brendan is, in my limited
interactions with him, a wonderful person who has done great things. It's very
difficult to know how to combine that with the idea that he is opposed to
equality for a large group of people.

~~~
acomjean
I spent a lot of time on construction sites doing inspections early in my
career. It was hard to fathom some really you got to know as really nice
people being really bigoted. Weirder when the targets of those comments worked
with the person making the comments.

Archie Bunker is truer to real life than I had possibly imagined.

I think this will be best for Mozilla. Its an organization that needs the good
will.

------
PakG1
I'm not going to comment on Brendan Eich or the mob. I want to comment about
friendship. Marc Andreesen could have done the politically correct thing and
thrown Eich under the bus. He didn't.

Whatever Eich is, whatever happens with Eich, whatever the mob is, the thing I
get out of this whole thing is that Andreesen is a classy guy. Don't know if
that's the biggest lesson I'm supposed to be getting out of this whole
situation, but it is what it is.

Much respect to Andreesen for being willing to stick his head out in a cool
and calm manner. No stoking the fire. No running away from the drama. Just a
clear statement that he is able to care about his friends.

[https://twitter.com/pmarca/status/451800039925374977](https://twitter.com/pmarca/status/451800039925374977)

------
mbillie1
All of this over a $1,000 donation, apparently. I think it's a bad cause and a
bad donation, and I don't have any sympathy at all for the anti-gay-marriage
types, but it's crazy to me to hang someone over a thousand dollar donation.
What percentage of the total money donated to prop 8 do you think that
represented?

~~~
wyclif
Eich didn't make that donation yesterday, you know. But I agree. He made a
small donation to a political cause. Are we going to start ritually
sacrificing people who don't line up with our personal causes and opinions? I
think this sets a draconian precedent. If this is where the culture in the
Valley is headed, I'm incredibly glad I'm not a part of it.

~~~
matthewmacleod
_Are we going to start ritually sacrificing people who don 't line up with our
personal causes and opinions?_

No - we are hopefully going to continue objecting to the appointment of people
whose personal views are incompatible with the values of the organisation they
are supposed to represent. That's totally legitimate, and I absolutely fail to
see what is wrong with doing so.

~~~
wyclif
A software developer and friend of mine wrote this just now, upon hearing the
news. I thought I'd share it here because I thought it was apt:

 _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._
You also need free speech to discuss what equality means, but apparently that
is no longer possible; our culture-makers have now decided there is a univocal
conception of equality that must be imposed on everyone.

~~~
matthewmacleod
_You also need free speech to discuss what equality means, but apparently that
is no longer possible; our culture-makers have now decided there is a univocal
conception of equality that must be imposed on everyone._

This is a gross misreading of the situation. It's actually pretty simple:

\- Eitch is appointed to important, visible community leadership position \-
His personal views are incompatible with those of the organisation and
actively harmful to many members of that community \- He does not engage with
or deal with this controversy, such as by apologising for his actions \-
People in the community who are directly or indirectly affected by his actions
object to the appointment \- He resigns.

I'm really, really struggling to figure out what exactly you guys who are
banging on about "cultural imposition" and other hand wavy nonsense actually
think should happen in a situation like this. Is the suggestion that nobody
should ever complain about anything? Should we complain, but avoid calling for
resignation? Should we turn a blind eye to people who are trying to strip
civil rights from us, our family, or our friends?

~~~
wyclif
_Call it left-wing anti-liberalism: the idea, captured by Herbert Marcuse in
his 1965 essay“Repressive Tolerance,” that social justice demands curbs on
freedom of expression. “[I]t is possible to define the direction in which
prevailing institutions, policies, opinions would have to be changed in order
to improve the chance of a peace which is not identical with cold war and a
little hot war, and a satisfaction of needs which does not feed on poverty,
oppression, and exploitation,” he wrote. “Consequently, it is also possible to
identify policies, opinions, movements which would promote this chance, and
those which would do the opposite. Suppression of the regressive ones is a
prerequisite for the strengthening of the progressive ones.”

Note here both the belief that correct opinions can be dispassionately
identified, and the blithe confidence in the wisdom of those empowered to do
the suppressing. This kind of thinking is only possible at certain moments:
when liberalism seems to have failed but the right is not yet in charge. At
such times, old-fashioned liberal values like free speech and robust, open
debate seem like tainted adjuncts of an oppressive system, and it’s still
possible for radicals to believe that the ideas suppressed as hateful won’t be
their own._

[http://www.thenation.com/blog/179160/cancelcolbert-and-
retur...](http://www.thenation.com/blog/179160/cancelcolbert-and-return-anti-
liberal-left)

------
jeremyt
Well, now, since we've got this all straightened out, let's just do it right
the next time.

Reply below with your suggestions on what political views will be litmus tests
for CEO positions in the future. We can compile a list, and then dig into the
next candidate's background to make sure that all of her or his views are
within the realm of acceptability.

A lot of people just want to apply this to the CEO position, but frankly a
hostile work environment can be created by coworkers, too. So, I propose that
we dig into the backgrounds of all the people that work at Mozilla and make
sure that the organization is thoroughly purged of people who could possibly
offend someone with her or his views.

~~~
facepalm
A CEO should be a woman.

~~~
gred
Bonus points if she was formerly a man.

------
lnlyplnt
This is just sad. Brendan was bullied for his personally help views that
_never once_ affected a working relationship he had with a colleague. This is
the inventor of _javascript_ does he not deserve some respect?

------
calebgilbert
Just wanted to put myself on record as thinking what happened to Brendan Eich
as being something that is totally shameful. Nerd/geek/tech culture totally
intolerant of anyone outside of exactly a certain mold.

People should be able to donate to what they want to, and one 'misdeed' (which
is arguable) should not undo every good deed. Amazing someone doesn't 'deserve
to keep their job' for donating to just about anything, let alone for a prop
that actually passed in a popular vote!

So guess the lesson is that according to 'gay rights' over half the voting
population in CA shouldn't have a job. Right on.

------
apetresc
Mozilla's stance on respecting people's private, personal decisions (as a
company working on a communication medium) is way more important to me than
its stance on same-sex politics. Where did all the privacy advocates suddenly
disappear to?

I'm staunchly pro-gay-rights and would've debated Eich vociferously on the
issue of gay marriage back in 2008 if he had chosen to make his opinion public
(which he didn't), but frankly Mozilla firing somebody based on a private
donation to a political cause makes me want to boycott it more than the
donation ever did. This seems like a textbook case of the privacy abuse that
the tinfoil-hatters are usually getting so worked up about.

~~~
blisterpeanuts
That's basically how I feel as well. Almost anyone has a skeleton or two in
the closet that some enterprising journalist might dig up, just to ruin his
career. We Americans are scandal-happy and rather intolerant, including those
who think of themselves as "more tolerant than thou" which in fact is an
insidious form of intolerance!

------
andrewcooke
i've stood my ground for my beliefs when people were ridiculing me for doing
so. it's a lonely position to be in.

i didn't share eich's views here, but he's free to have them, and the reason
for the problem is, ironically, the intolerance of other people (people
forcing their "tolerance" down his throat).

he has my respect. not for his view on gays. but for staying true to what he
did. i think this is a shame.

~~~
wdewind
Except he didn't stand his ground at all. He never once explained his beliefs.
If he had done that I think people would've been a lot more tolerant of him. I
don't think it had to end this way.

~~~
rossjudson
Sure it did. The knives were out.

Is it a requirement to explain what you believe? You can't just state it? I
mean, there's no rational reason to oppose gay marriage, so attempting to
rationalize it just comes off sounding stupid. Should we force a person to say
stupid things?

Maybe what you mean is to demand a conversation. Forcing someone to
participate in a conversation doesn't seem right either.

Does a person have the right to be close-minded?

~~~
wdewind
> Is it a requirement to explain what you believe? You can't just state it? I
> mean, there's no rational reason to oppose gay marriage, so attempting to
> rationalize it just comes off sounding stupid. Should we force a person to
> say stupid things?

Someone who is CEO of a very public, very community driven company? I think
it's reasonable to expect him to participate in a conversation about his
beliefs, especially when those beliefs do not seem to reflect those of the
community he represents and the community is a core part of the business. That
conversation seems to me to be a part of the business itself.

He doesn't have to believe certain things, but to be an effective CEO he has
to have the community respect the integrity of his beliefs. He didn't even
give them the opportunity to do so, and then complained that he was being
witch hunted. All he had to do was say "No, actually I'm not a witch." Instead
he said "I promise I wont speak any spells." This analogy is getting a bit
silly, but you get my point.

> Does a person have the right to be close-minded?

Absolutely, and a person has the right to be close minded and run a company as
well! This has NOTHING, let me repeat NOTHING, to do with Eich's _rights._

------
benjohnson
"our large, global, and diverse community is what makes Mozilla special"

Apparently diversity is narrower today.

~~~
matthewmacleod
_Diversity_ as a concept cannot legitimately be defined to include intolerance
as an attribute to be protected. Swap out "anti-gay-marriage" for "racist" or
"anti-semitic" – it would be difficult to argue that calling for the
resignation of an active campaigner against racial equality was "anti-
diversity"; the same applies here.

~~~
viggity
I was against prop 8, it was stupid, but people act like it was going to throw
members of the LGBT in prison or death camps or something.

~~~
mpalmer
Not sure if you're a member of the LGBT community or not, but it sounds like
your argument here is that because the reactions of others against Prop 8 were
stronger than your own, they were invalid.

It's not a very tenable position to take. Do you really believe the outcry
over putting minorities in prison would parallel that of Prop 8?

~~~
viggity
No, I don't think they're invalid, I just think such strong visceral reactions
are counterproductive. Prop 8 supporters and/or fence sitters are much less
likely to have an open mind when someone is screaming at them that they're a
bigot.

Prop 8 supporters are wrong. Not Evil.

------
g8oz
In Communist times organizations used to have a commissar figure that
monitored people for "incorrect" political opinions. He/she exercised power
over people for reasons that had nothing to do with the organization's
business.

These days apparently the Internet will allow anyone to fill that role.

------
coreymgilmore
Well it happened. I think this is a little extreme and that he shouldn't have
succumbed to the pressure. Apparently freedom of speech is no longer accepted
by plenty of people in the US. It is okay to put money towards and protest for
equal rights, but anytime someone says something negative against it all hell
breaks loose. That being said, in general, I think people are a little too
sensitive toward anything non-politically-correct these days. At the end of
the day, everyone can voice their own opinion. Some people will be supportive,
some won't.

~~~
ZanyProgrammer
Nah freedom of speech is alive and well. Freedom of speech does not mean
you're immune from other people exercising _their_ freedom of speech.

~~~
coreymgilmore
touche. touche.

------
wyclif
Gay-Rights McCarthyism Takes Brendan Eich's Scalp
[http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/brendan-
eich-g...](http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/brendan-eich-gay-
rights-mccarthyism/)

~~~
camus2
_Gay-Rights McCarthyism_ : novlang and oxymoron, you folks are used to
twisting things to the max... what's next ? pro black neo nazism ?

~~~
filmgirlcw
I mean, unless we're talking about Roy Cohn. ZING

Seriously, I'm in full-agreement, but I try to get in a good Roy Cohn diss any
time I can.

------
spikels
This is sad. I wish I lived in a world where your personal beliefs, even very
unpopular ones, could be kept separate from your professional life.
Unfortunately we seem to need to put people in a single box.

~~~
vacri
It means that there is now a precedent for anti-gay folks to argue against
homosexuals being employed against the principles of the company, even when
those principles are not the core product. "This hardware company espouses
conservative Christian values - you can't work here because of your opinions".
Separation of personal opinion and professional life goes beyond CxO staff.

~~~
dragonwriter
> It means that there is now a precedent for anti-gay folks to argue against
> homosexuals being employed against the principles of the company, even when
> those principles are not the core product.

Actually, no, that precedent has existed for a long time -- in the form of
fairly widespread and _legal_ workplace discrimination against homosexuals --
which is one of the reasons that supporters of LGBT rights have sought to have
sexual orientation enshrined in state and federal law as an explicitly
prohibited basis for employment, housing, and other discrimination, as it is
currently not in federal law in the US [1], or in the laws of many of the
states (though it is in _some_ states.)

[1] Although, in the sphere of employment, there are recent executive
decisions at the federal level to treat orientation discrimination -- and
other forms of gender stereotyping -- as sex discrimination, and thereby
prohibited by laws that prohibit sex discrimination. But whether that
interpretation will stand up in court remains to be seen.

------
spikels
Also in 2008

"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay
marriage."

\- Barack Obama

~~~
parfe
Barack Obama's full quote:

"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay
marriage. But when you start playing around with constitutions, just to
prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that's
not what America's about. Usually, our constitutions expand liberties, they
don't contract them."

Candidate Obama opposed prop 8 in 2008 and strongly supported civil unions.

[http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1598407/did-barack-obama-
an...](http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1598407/did-barack-obama-answer-your-
question.jhtml)

~~~
spikels
Sounds more like a politician trying to have it both ways. Prop 8 had nothing
to do with civil unions and said almost exactly what 2008 Obama said he
believed. Then as the polls changed so did his "beliefs". Just politicians
being politicians.

Another great example of this behavior is Hillary Clinton who as of 2013
supports same sex marriage but back who 2000 said:

"Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the
beginning of time and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been,
between a man and a woman."

So obviously everyone against Eich as CEO of Mozilla will be against Hillary
for President. Right?

Maybe be we should just ignore people's personal views when it comes to their
employment. Especially when those views have nothing at all to do with your
job as in Eich's case (not the case with Obama or Hillary).

------
Spooky23
So Mozilla supports diversity and freedom on many vectors -- as long as they
are the correct positions.

Certainly not a very courageous stance.

~~~
blueveek
Brendan chose to leave, because it was hurting Mozilla. This is not a
"corporate decision".

~~~
gdwatson
It's hard to say whether or not that's true. Such resignations are asked for
at least as often as they are volunteered.

------
dkhenry
This is a dangerous precedent. On one hand this is the only thing Brendan can
do its clear that the community at large will not accept dissenting opinions,
but its really a small step between holding this line for a CEO and holding it
for any employee.

~~~
sethish
Slippery slope argument? Really?

------
Beliavsky
Suppose conservative activists push out a CEO because he contributes to
Planned Parenthood or otherwise supports legal abortion. Would the Eich
critics be OK with that? Many conservatives believe that stopping abortion is
as much about human rights as liberals think gay marriage is. Both sides can
play the game of getting people fired for views unrelated to their jobs. It
would be better if neither side did.

~~~
faet
Many oppose companies that push a "gay agenda" or support abortion.

In 1986, 7-Eleven stopped selling Playboy and Penthouse magazines after a two-
year boycott by the AFA.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Family_Association](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Family_Association)

------
facepalm
"We believe in free speech, therefore this guy who has an unpopular opinion
has to step down".

Yeah right... (And I am pro gay marriage, but I can respect if people oppose
it).

------
Yoric
I see many people discussing freedom of speech and the right to be against gay
marriage (or some metaphors thereof). While this is partially true, I believe
that this is largely missing several points.

Brendan Eich made a _private_ choice in a democratic vote. This private choice
was leaked 4 years after the fact. Two more years later, this private choice
prevents him from stepping into a new position. Brendan Eich went out of his
way to avoid discussing this private choice, and still his privacy on the
matter (and a few others) was turned into a public thing and put into the
front of a mob. Not good.

Also, people seem to forget that Brendan Eich was (briefly) CEO of an
organization that has as many ties and contributors in parts of the world
where homosexuality is problematic, forbidden, or even punishable by death.
While Brendan Eich's fall from position is a win for some, I can imagine the
whole campaign having nasty and unwanted consequences for open-source
communities (not just Mozilla's) around the world.

~~~
dnr
You seem to not be very familiar with the facts. We can guess that he voted
for prop 8, but his vote is truly private and nobody but him knows how he
voted.

What do know is that he gave $1000 to an organization that campaigned for the
proposition. This is a matter of public record, by law in California. It was
not "leaked" (well, it was leaked, but it was also publicly available in 2008
if anyone had bothered to look). You can find his contributions by searching
here:

[http://dbsearch.ss.ca.gov/](http://dbsearch.ss.ca.gov/)

It would have been clearly stated on the form that he filled out to make his
contribution that contributions over $200 would be made public. He knew that,
and made the contribution anyway.

------
adrianlmm
Well, I won't use Firefox anymore and I won't use anything related to Mozilla,
I can't tolerate this injustice.

~~~
broflosup
I'm kind of conflicted. On one hand, there's Chrome, but it's used by Google
to help US government spy on you. On another hand, there's Mozilla. Both good
browsers but are being developed by pretty evil people.

~~~
openjck
Mozilla employee here.

Please remember that Mozilla is not one person. Mozilla is a global community
of people, staff and volunteers, working to protect and care for the web in a
way that no other group of people can. We are not perfect, but we are
generally good people, and we are trying our hardest to do good, selfless
work.

Be angry about Brendan, but please do not let your anger cross over to the
project itself. Mozilla is about so much more than one executive.

~~~
adrianlmm
No, if the Mozilla staff can't grow a pair and stand by one of his employees
then I don't want to have any relationship with them.

------
scottu1
I wish he'd just weathered it out. If there's a side of this that thinks this
is pretty ridiculous, I'm on that side.

I'm sure there are a million things that my CEO believes that I don't agree
with, but the only thing that matters is that he takes the company in the
right direction.

Who is there better to lead Mozilla than Eich? The next CEO will be the second
best choice or worse. I wonder who would want to step into the middle of this.

------
gyardley
While this is a good first step, we're also going to need to boycott
JavaScript and the companies that use it until JavaScript is replaced with a
non-discriminatory alternative.

~~~
ronaldx
Ruby on Rails? ;)

~~~
jarsin
Fu*k You!

:)

------
FreedomFan
This is awful. I never thought I'd see the tech community target a person like
this for a witchhunt because of what are presumably religious beliefs. Eich
did nothing illegal. All he did was exercise his First Amendment right.
There's no reason to believe that he would ever allow his personal beliefs to
affect his decisions as a CEO.

Basically, this is thoughtcrime.

~~~
quasque
No-one is saying he did anything illegal, and this certainly isn't
'thoughtcrime' \- he actively donated money to a bigoted cause, an action
incompatible with the values of the organisation that he was the public face
of. That is the core issue here.

------
IanDrake
To me this is a win for freedom of speech and free markets. You're free to
express your close minded opinion, but the market is free to reject it and
you.

~~~
daveqr
This was the opposite of a win for freedom of speech.

~~~
adamwong246
"Freedom of Speech" does not mean "Freedom from the Consequences of your
Speech."

~~~
cousin_it
No, freedom of speech means exactly that people shouldn't be punished for
speech. What else could it possibly mean?

~~~
Aloisius
No, it means freedom from _state_ censorship and _state_ punishment
(imprisonment for instance). The public can punish you all they want.

~~~
cousin_it
Well, that's a bug in freedom of speech then. Other freedoms don't work like
that. They protect you from all actors, not just the state. For example, your
employer can't fire you for being gay. They shouldn't be able to fire you for
your political views either.

~~~
Aloisius
Plenty of other freedoms work exactly like that.

The freedom to assemble doesn't mean that private owners can't keep you from
assembling on their property. The freedom of press doesn't mean that the
editors can't censor your work. The freedom to bear arms doesn't mean that
private businesses can't bar you from the premises.

~~~
makomk
Which means, in practice, that people can't necessarily use those freedoms. If
most or all public spaces are privately-owned how do you exercise your freedom
to assemble? Now that most of the communication channels people use are
privately owned, how much freedom of speech do we really have?

------
wyclif
The ritual sacrifice is now complete [http://www.firstthings.com/web-
exclusives/2014/04/mozilla-mo...](http://www.firstthings.com/web-
exclusives/2014/04/mozilla-mo-problems)

------
thrwwwy
One thing that is clear is that any corporate executive who holds an anti-LGBT
viewpoint will be destroyed. Eich was made an example of.

The ability for internet mobs to create chilling effects could lead to a
movement for _less_ transparency for smaller political donations. Where I'm
sitting, that wouldn't be a bad thing.

------
nsxwolf
I fear this is a sign of things to come. Today it is CEOs, tomorrow it is
someone lesser. Eventually it will reach the common worker.

Have an incorrect viewpoint on anything? Better keep quiet if you want to be
able to take care of your family.

------
rabino
This is unfortunate. We're accepting that bullying is ok as long the bullied
is the one with the unpopular ideas. Pretty sad.

------
muyuu
Wow. The bullying of Brendan Eich really makes me question whether I should
support Mozilla any longer. And ashamed I have donated in the past.

This is pure fascism.

~~~
wnoise
Fascism is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism, combined with a
regulated economic structure of cooperation between major corporations and the
government.

This is rather different.

~~~
muyuu
You are right, this is McCarthyism. I didn't find the right word at the time.

------
vezzy-fnord
I guess it's for the best. He simply became a magnet for controversy, so
hopefully this quells people's sensibilities and lets the foundation focus on
what it's meant to do.

------
news_to_me
I find this whole ordeal disappointing. Eich's personal beliefs should have
only been criticized insofar as they impacted his ability as CEO. I'm not sure
how much that would have been, but the attacks targeted Eich as a whole, and
shouldn't have.

Regardless, his stepping down seemed to be the only way to move Mozilla
forward, which is a shame.

------
grn
Personally I don't know what to think when organizations mix their core
business (e.g. making a web browser) and politics (e.g. support for free
speech). I'd like to see politics and business as separate as possible. What
do you think?

~~~
mhurron
A little difficult to do when part of what made the Mozilla Foundation what it
is is supporting equality.

It would be hard to see a Skinhead leading a Kosher brand for the same reason.

~~~
blisterpeanuts
It would be hard to see a neo-Nazi appointed head of NAACP, too. Or a rabidly
fundamentalist Baptist put in charge of Union of Reform Judaism.

But that's not what happened here. Eich is not an extremist. His views were
well within the mainstream, at least 4 years ago when this proposition was on
the ballot. Heck it passed with 7 million voters in favor. Had he voted yes
but not donated that $1000, no one would have even found out. What a stupid
thing to pillory someone over, with all the problems in the world.

------
gred
This is astounding to me. In an industry which claims to be a meritocracy, at
a nonprofit pledged to promoting openness, a legend is no longer allowed to
contribute because he dares to agree with the majority of his fellow
Californians on a political issue, on his own time, with his own money. For
shame.

~~~
dragonwriter
> a legend is no longer allowed to contribute

Er, since when is Eich not "allowed to contribute"?

> because he dares to agree with the majority of his fellow Californians on a
> political issue, on his own time, with his own money.

Either he voluntarily stepped down (in which case, the reason stated is
clearly wrong) or he was forced to stepped down by the Mozilla Corporation
board and/or the Mozilla Foundation (which owns Mozilla Corp), in which case
its a lot more likely that the reason is that they lost confidence in his
ability to lead because of the way he _responded_ to the controversy, rather
than that they were upset by his political stand. In any case, there is very
little basis for the characterization you present.

------
booop
It's kind of sad and ironic to see his career take such a beating with what he
helped create.

------
tbassetto
The article is not clearly saying it but he is leaving Mozilla, not just
stepping down as CEO.

~~~
Di4YouPu
Mozilla is dead

~~~
jackmaney
I hope you're right.

------
SloughFeg
In a sad way, all the activists have really done given a good example for why
political donations records should be kept away from the public.

------
drawkbox
This is all wrong. Brendan was wrong, however others were wrong essentially
forcing him out. I feel Mozilla will lose some in this, taking a few self-
inflicted wounds because they are open and that is unfortunate. It is the
reason CEOs are plastic.

Part of Mozilla's culture is now throwing someone who helped build it up under
the bus. Yes his personal beliefs may be dated on this one issue, lots of
people are on the wrong side of the issue but it had nothing to do with his
contributions to Mozilla. This makes me more disappointed in Mozilla just when
Firefox is really killing it with gaming.

Should a person's life work be wrecked because of one bad choice? Social
changes of that magnitude will have people on the wrong side of the wave for a
time, it takes time to educate. I think this is the wrong way to educate, it
feels a little bit like a witch hunt.

~~~
blisterpeanuts
Definitely the wrong way to educate. It sends the wrong message. For a lot of
people, it has exposed the ugly side of political correctness and the
cowardice of the organization, that it would toss overboard one of its
founders.

------
chippy
I think the whole thing is sickening. Why? Because there are CEO's and
companies that you and I use and love that are not boycotted. That are not
hounded. That support the murder of people around the world. That support the
exploitation of people. That pollute the environment. That invade the privacy
of people's lives. That make the world a worse place. That we and our
governments support.

These are the targets that should be addressed.

------
tbranyen
This disappoints me, because I wanted to see Brendan overcome this by
apologizing, sympathizing, and connecting. From my point of view it seemed
like Mozilla had a train wreck of a PR nightmare and for reasons I cannot
understand decided to throw in the towel and give up. What was learned? What
trust was gained?

This was a chance for tackling a large issue in a meaningful way and for
whatever reason he didn't try.

~~~
tbranyen
To expand on my comment, I am woefully uneducated on the entirety of the
situation. I was speaking as someone who knows Brendan and his work and wanted
to see his appointment resolve positively, not fail.

------
ringe
How come the only way you can be open-minded is to have all your opinions
narrowly placed in the current politically correct mindset?

------
ra88it
Mozilla won't even summarize what happened. They don't appear any "truer to
themselves" now than they did last week.

Didn't move fast enough to engage with people? What does that even mean? What
would they have done if they had been true to themselves? As far as I can
tell, there still has only been a single action taken: Eich chose to step
down.

------
weixiyen
This is terrible. Way to go, Internets.

------
barking
If it was correct for Brendan Eich to resign, would it be incorrect for any
company to now offer Brendan Eich a job?

~~~
blisterpeanuts
None of the people piously denouncing Brendan Eich as a "homophobe" or
trouncer of gay rights would have the courage to face him across a desk and
say, "We can't hire you because you supported Prop 8."

Instead they will lie and say, "Your skills are not the right fit. Best of
luck with your search."

Very few people have the courage of their convictions. Eich could have caved
and said something like "I've changed my thinking about Prop 8 and I deeply
regret supporting it."

Instead, he stayed true to his convictions and did the best thing for Mozilla
which is clearly an organization he cares deeply about.

~~~
Dewie
_It 's just a poor culture fit_ :)

------
darasen
Just remember free speech and an open mind are encouraged. Unless you disagree
with the LGBT agenda.

------
lohankin
HN, my congratulations! You managed to destroy a talented person for having a
view different from yours. All under the flag of tolerance. Next destination:
Gulag. You are almost there. Why is it OK for him to be CTO if he is a
people's enemy? Nor can he go to any other place, regardless of position other
than a janitor, and even that I'm not sure. "10 years of corrective labor
without the right of correspondence" \- does it say something to you?

------
ternaryoperator
If diversity does not include people with opposing political viewpoints, it's
not diversity.

------
27182818284
Holy crap, I thought the OKCupid thing was an April Fool's joke. I had no
idea.

Whoa.

~~~
blacksmith_tb
Will we get a new "it's ok that you're using Firefox page from them now"?

~~~
vacri
Nope. Just checked, and it silently takes you to the regular login page.

Poor form, OKC.

------
JeremyMorgan
So, now that's done. Are we boycotting JavaScript now?

~~~
byuu
If he becomes the new CEO of the Javascript Corporation, possibly. There
weren't boycott calls when Eich was CTO of Mozilla.

------
robinhowlett
I wouldn't be surprised if this scenario will be repeated within the free
software tech community for other contentious issues. As we see with recent
Supreme Court actions taken by Hobby Lobby, company leadership's personal
viewpoints do influence people's relationships to those companies.

It appears the most vocal against Eich view, I imagine, same-sex marriage as a
fundamental human right.

Will other topics go this way, like, for example, the "climate change" debate,
especially as those topics evolve? There seems is a rising group of people who
view skepticism/denial of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change akin to
that level.

Mozilla's Manifesto doesn't speak to holding any particular viewpoint outside
of promotion of a free, accessible Internet and free, open software.

However, the principle of "transparent community-based processes promote
participation, accountability and trust" must have influenced both the
internal culture and its users, who felt that Eich's actions didn't reflect
their views. Chick-fil-a is in the reverse scenario but doesn't seem to
experience this kind of thing.

------
tn13
This is bad. Not just for Mozilla and tech community but also for LGBT
community.

LGBT community's witch hunt reflects less on Eich but more on the LGBR
community who will now be viewed as "risky recruits".

------
vain
If OKCupid are against Brendan for his stance on gay marriage, they need to
stop using javascript. Brendan Eich invented javascript.

------
iamthepieman
Is there anything besides his donation to the Prop 8 effort that led to the
controversy and him stepping down?

~~~
Jtsummers
He supported an anti-gay marriage candidate with campaign contributions.
Essentially, if he'd not had the Prop 8 donation, and only the campaign
contributions, no one would have made a connection. His donations would've
shown that he supported Republican candidates (since he, outside a response to
the Prop 8 donation, made no statements regarding gay marriage that anyone
ever linked to) and nothing else.

~~~
anaphor
How do you know that he donated to these candidates primarily because of their
anti-gay rights views anyway? Correlation != causation you know?

~~~
Jtsummers
We don't, but no correlation would have been made without the Prop 8 donation.
That was my point.

~~~
anaphor
Okay fair enough. If your point is that it can be used to argue for more
character flaws or whatever then yes, I agree, it can.

------
shmerl
Sad and wrong. But I guess Mozilla didn't want to deal with all that flaming
directed at them.

------
throwaway54984
I wonder what would have happened if he had an opinion on other sensitive
topics, let's say he would have been for making heroine available over the
counter just like beer in a supermarket. Would this be too much even for the
liberal Mozilla?

------
camus2
First, i want to say to Eich,that he is entitled to his opinions and noone is
going to go after him with pitchforks and torches for that.

Next, I believe that was the right decision. Because it put Mozilla into a
difficult position. You might think all this anger was excessive perhaps it
was, yet it casted a negative image on Mozilla,since the CEO is a public
figure for a company.

I hope this event will open up a real debate about gay rights and why it equal
rights matter, because more rights for gays doesnt mean less rights for
straight people,like civil rights for blacks did not end up reducing white
people's rights, and then we can move on to other things,like you know ,
technology.

~~~
jibber
>I hope this event will open up a real debate

Seems like it will discourage people from expressing their view. Who wants to
endanger their career?

------
filmgirlcw
What I still can't understand is how Eich was ever approved by the board to
begin with. His qualifications aside, the very fact that this had already
become public before and was clearly antithetical to the ethos of Mozilla's
position as a company should have excluded him from ever getting the job.

As CTO, people might have disagreed with his opinion, but it's hard to make a
salient argument that he should be forced out for having that opinion.

It's a bit different when your job entails overseeing an entire organization
-- including HR -- and you financially contribute to causes that aim to
exclude some of your current or future employees.

~~~
blisterpeanuts
Slippery slope. No one should ever be "forced out" for having an opinion. If
there are employees who feel he doesn't properly manage them or "represent"
them or they feel he is "oppressing" them, well maybe they are the ones with
the problem and should go work some place else, or just work harder to defend
their rights during their off hours without bringing it into the workplace.
There's no evidence that Eich was bringing it into the workplace. This whole
thing is based on a contribution to a successful ballot question several years
ago.

------
brucelee123
So, are we going to stop using JavaScript now?

------
elwell
[http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/01/mozilla-
ce...](http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/01/mozilla-ceo-brendan-
eich-refuses-to-quit)

------
fakeanon
>Our organizational culture reflects diversity and inclusiveness. We welcome
contributions from everyone regardless of age, culture, ethnicity, gender,
gender-identity, language, race, sexual orientation, geographical location and
religious views. Mozilla supports equality for all.

_Unless one of your cultural or religious views is that marriage is between
one man and one woman._ We're inclusive of everyone! Unless you voted for
something we don't like... I'm not saying you _should_ hire anybody, but don't
pretend like you will then don't.

------
dataminded
I wonder how much of an impact if any this will have on hiring at Mozilla.

------
maratc
The first person to lose his job to homophobo-phobia.

------
thrwwwy
Eich's outing was as a result of a leak from an IRS employee.

Could he sue the US government, and/or the IRS employee that leaked the donor
list?

It pains me to use a _National Review_ blog as a source but it seems that the
Obama administration hasn't made an effort to prosecute the leaker:
[http://www.nationalreview.com/article/362667/investigation-i...](http://www.nationalreview.com/article/362667/investigation-
ids-irs-leaker-eliana-johnson)

~~~
dnr
Campaign contributions over $200 are public record in California. This
information has been publicly available since 2008, it's just that nobody
bothered to look before. You can see his contributions here (the site is
really slow for me right now):

[http://dbsearch.ss.ca.gov/](http://dbsearch.ss.ca.gov/)

------
m0a0t0
It seems, from the comments here, that speaking and donating against equal
rights is a protected freedom but as soon as anyone is called out for it then
that isn't allowed.

------
m-photonic
Another day, another demonstration that the loudest voices on any given issue
are never those that are most nuanced. The squeaky wheel gets the grease
indeed.

------
clyderadcliffe
Really sad to see Brendan go, I work full time as JavaScript dev. So to a
certain extent I owe my livelihood too him. Really sad to see him lose his
livelihood. Sad for Mozilla too, in their time they did a lot of good. I am
thankful for the work they did in setting the Internet free from IE.

I don't believe in the kind of freedom Mozilla now stands for. I do not know
Brendan's religious views. But I am a Christian, and as Christian I am opposed
to gay marriage. I could not change my view on gay marriage without abandoning
my faith. I could not read the Bible with any honesty and say it supports gay
marriage. I cannot apologise for my view without apologising on God's behalf.
Those demanding an apology from Brendan are perhaps in reality asking him to
renounce his faith. By asking Brendan to step down, Mozilla has made a
statement to me that as Christian that I am not welcome in their community.
And by extensions nor are Muslims, Jews, Mormons, JWs etc.

Is Mozilla destined to become an echo chamber for those who support gay
marriage? Is freedom just freedom to agree? Sadly whoever becomes CEO now is
now second best on technical merit.

~~~
dnr
The wonderful thing about living in a country with a separation of church and
state is that you don't have to change your views! You're welcome to believe
whatever you want, and even to talk about it! The only thing you have to do is
not try to turn your beliefs into laws that affect other people, like people
that don't share your religion.

\--

And for the record, many Christians, Muslims, Jews, and members of lots of
other religious do support gay marriage. Please don't attempt to speak for
billions of people all at once.

------
_Simon
Disgusted with the treatment of Brendan Eich by the community. You guys
_bullied_ , slandered and libelled and individual. Your behaviour towards him
is far _worse_ than his views. As far as I'm concerned, Mozilla no longer
exists. I'm not interested in anything that a organisation that supports this
kind of community says or does. Fucking hypocrites, every last one of you.

------
mkr-hn
It's sad that people calling for his head screamed louder than people asking
politely for clarification. I just wanted to know why a company that says it's
pro-equality hired as CEO someone who donated to an anti-equality campaign.

The action was inconsistent with the claim. A lot of people changed their
minds in the years after 2008, so I was ready to believe he changed his.

~~~
stephen_g
> I just wanted to know why a company that says it's pro-equality hired as CEO
> someone who donated to an anti-equality campaign.

Clearly because it hadn't affected his work or the way he treated any of his
colleagues over the many years he worked there, and because he was extremely
well qualified for the job?

------
huehue
Making a great job for many years. Forced to step down by social justice
warriors.

Such is the dictatorship of political correctness. A scary world to live in.

Learn from his mistake as it might happen to you. Today's witch hunt is about
gay marriage, in ten years it could be polyamory, underage drug usage or being
forced to wear a burqa. You just cannot predict.

------
cbarton
... with all this BS, I wonder what the new Javascript will be! But in all
seriousness, I wonder what his coworkers thought of him, if he was parading
around his views or would focus more on work (bc that's what's important after
all), any blog links for me to discover more?

------
general_failure
Everyone has a right to opinion. Brendan has his opinion. The internet also
had it's opinion. Nobody is right or wrong here, just the way it is. OKCupid
was well within it's rights to denounce firefox - just like brendan was within
his rights to support prop8.

------
leommoore
I do not share Brendan's views but he is entitled to have them. People who
target individuals because they do not have the sames views as them should be
ashamed. Is this not what freedom is all about?

------
tn13
So if I support Gun ownership and my CEO has supported some Gun Ban movement
should I leave the organization or should I demand that the CEO step down ?

I wish Mozilla showed some balls here.

------
yawboakye
Really sad about and disappointed in the way the whole internet reacted to
Mozilla choice of CEO. To the homophobic it's wrong to be gay and to the gay
it's wrong to be homophobic. If we accept LGBTQ as a circuitry of the mind,
why don't we treat homophobia the same? And if it's ok to publicly admit to
being gay why isn't it the same for homophobic? Where's the tolerance of
political views?

~~~
jacobwil
> If we accept LGBTQ as a circuitry of the mind, why don't we treat homophobia
> the same?

Are you telling me that you think some people are biologically predisposed
towards homophobia?

Just because people have the right to exercise free speech does not indemnify
them from the consequences. Drawing broad strokes about how we should respect
people's rights to express opinions while not judging them for those opinions
is not practical. It's all shades of gray.

------
fredgrott
I do not think anyone won here as Mozilla had an opportunity to call both BE
and the other parties into some type of meeting with real dialogue..but
instead will still have thins not solved..

Here are the still smoldering issues:

1\. Religious right still wants to hold the marriage license as their
property..Separation of Church and State occurred over 500 years ago in
Western Cultures an governments.. 2\. Bigotry and Ignorance

------
AnotherDesigner
What we've learned today:

Most commenters on Hacker News don't know what freedom of speech is. They also
don't understand, or maybe don't care, about the responsibility of society to
protect minority groups. They also haven't read the bible or understand any of
the history behind religion-based attacks on gay rights. I had no idea we had
so many Fox News viewers here.

------
chappi42
"Mozilla prides itself on being held to a different standard and, this past
week, we didn’t live up to it"...

Bla bla, shame on these platitudes!

Bad times when a ceo no longer can act according to his opinion (in private).
Reflects very badly upon Mozilla: no spine, get rid of Eich and talk about 'we
are stronger with you involved'.

Deeply disappointed (and fwiw i'm pro gay marriage).

------
ryanwhitney
Let's watch a speech by Tim Cook. [http://business.time.com/2013/12/15/apple-
ceo-tim-cook-gives...](http://business.time.com/2013/12/15/apple-ceo-tim-cook-
gives-remarkable-speech-on-gay-rights-racism/)

A quote he mentions: "Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to
improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a
tiny ripple of hope, and those ripples build a current which can sweep down
the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance."

This is progress. This is the exact opposite of Eich's actions. Sure, he stood
up for his "ideal" and didn't back down, but he objectively hurt others.
Opinions, fine. But Eich took _actions_ to hold others back. Along with those
who tried to deny interracial marriage in the past, he stands on the wrong
side of history. There is no lynch mob--just other folks on the internet who
have the right to speak against those committing actions of hatred.

"Basic human rights. Basic human dignity."

------
tptacek
Hey, Joe, do you support marriage equality?

Of course I do.

You know, I'm not sure I believe you. After all, you pretty much have to say
that to keep your job.

------
wil421
Its sad this guy is losing his job over an unrelated personal choice.

But:

Who donates money to stop same sex marriage? I mean I have much bigger things
on my plate than stopping someone from making a lifestyle choice. And I have
_MUCH_ better things to do with my money.

------
agapos
For every people who says that "the CEO is the face of an organisation": can
you name all the former Mozilla CEO's? Or any CEO who wasn't Jobs or Ballmer?

Honestly, I am curious.

~~~
ZanyProgrammer
Larry Ellison, Eric Schmidt.Carly Fiorina. Meg Whitman.

------
retartyr
"HN's approach to comments". if it meant anything, every flame-fanning article
on this subject should have been [dead] before it reached 5 comments.

------
rasengan0
I guess your views are a part of your performance review.

------
MrZongle2
Competency be damned! He held controversial opinions and supported like-minded
causes! _Destroy him!_

Edit: Downvotes, but no replies. Come on, kids...if you think I'm wrong then
explain.

~~~
matthewmacleod
He held personal opinions which were incompatible with those of the
organisation he was leading, and were actively opposed to the interests of
many in the wider community he was a visible and important leader of.

That's why there was so much backlash against the appointment, and in itself
stands as evidence that he was not a suitable choice for the position.

~~~
MrZongle2
First: thank you for responding, regardless of your up/down/no vote.

But I disagree that his personal opinions were incompatible with Mozilla. They
make software, Eich makes software.

Mozilla has nothing to do with social activism. Well, at least, they didn't
_until now_.

~~~
matthewmacleod
Mozilla explicitly states that one of it's goals is to foster an inclusive and
diverse software community. In their position, where they do so much work
related to community engagement, do you not see how the views of their CEO
conflicting with their stated mission is a problem?

~~~
bashcoder
Whatever your beliefs, I'm not sure how this saga fosters either inclusiveness
or diversity, and I'm afraid the word community has lost all meaning.

------
codeoclock
I've seen some people defending him for various reasons, most prominently
because he has a right to free speech. Of course he has a right to free
speech, and he exercised it. He also has the responsibility to accept the
consequences. His actions/speech made enough people angry enough to exercise
their speech to the extent that Eich's position was no longer tenable.

People too often forget that rights don't mean that there will be no
consequences to exercising those rights (within the bounds of the law, and
other things).

------
babesh
JavaScript is a utterly horrible language. How could you let someone who
designed that monstrosity become your CTO much less your CEO?

------
beefsack
Was it not an option to make a public statement to back down on the stance? I
can't help but feel this is entirely unpragmatic.

------
balls187
I feel like this could have been completely avoided if Brendan Eich said "I'm
sorry. I was wrong. I supported a cause that I no longer believe in."

Since that was in 2008, and people can change their opinions & beliefs.

This assumes of course, he no longer believes that marriage only applies to
straight couples.

------
Di4YouPu
As inventor of javaScript, working for Netscape and later for Mozilla, without
Brendan Eich the project is dead.

Homo or hetero... You all have problems with your sexual fantasies. Did I miss
to say "fucking"? Should I give a "fuck" about you? Back in your pants,
stupid!

------
pknerd
So freedom of expression is to support Gays but not to oppose them?

------
GnwbZHiU
The bigots win. I will stop using Firefox now.

------
pistle
This contents me. Good choice Eich.

------
stefantalpalaru
This is an example of what a hate-driven vocal minority can do. It's scary.

~~~
username223
What, getting ousted as CEO for unrepentant bigotry? I'm not that scared.

~~~
Dirlewanger
And this "unrepentant bigotry" directly affected how many peoples' lives? No
one's?

~~~
Aloisius
The thousands of gay couples who wanted to get married but couldn't because of
donations like his? The denial of rights of gay couples who were married
before prop 8?

There are actual people who have been denied inheritance, denied the right to
visit their partner in the hospital, denied the ability to go their loved
one's funeral by their family _because_ of prop 8.

~~~
wpietri
Whoever's downvoting you should be ashamed. The exact effect of Prop 8 was to
strip marriage rights from people. And part of why it worked (until struck
down in federal court as the civil rights violation its opponents always knew
it to be) is the well-funded campaign in favor of it.

------
benched
Half of the people in this thread are deeply confused about the relationship
between civil rights and popular opinion. The latter is a perception of the
former, not the cause or definition.

------
jackmaney
Good riddance.

------
bowlofpetunias
I am stunned at how many people on HN seem to thing Eich should not be judged
on his personal so-called "political" views.

If he was a racist in favor of segregation would people still take that
position? I seriously doubt it.

~~~
barking
Taking a view is one thing, persecution is another.

~~~
beedogs
Right. And he donated to help eliminate gay marriage in California; to me,
that counts as persecution.

------
grecy
Good. I hope his career is over and he falls into obscurity.

He's just like someone championing segregation a few decades ago. History will
not look at him kindly.

The world has no place for those that discriminate.

------
enthdegree
FireCEO GayFox

------
maga
First it was Ryan Dahl, then Ben Noordhuis, and now Brendan Eich... I can't
really believe it's happening again.

~~~
camus2
> First it was Ryan Dahl, then Ben Noordhuis, and now Brendan Eich... I can't
> really believe it's happening again.

what? what the heck are talking about ?

~~~
stormcrowsx
I'll take a stab at this one.

The CIA/NSA/Government is setting up Javascript for failure (to save all of us
sane programmers). Eich is just the next in their list to discredit and
undermine Javascript's leadership.

------
username223
> We didn’t act like you’d expect Mozilla to act. We didn’t move fast enough
> to engage with people once the controversy started.

Oh, Mozilla, you acted exactly like we expected. You spouted some
condescending PR BS instead of apologizing for making an unrepentant homophobe
your CEO.

------
sethbannon
Comments here are pretty supportive of Brendan but I see this as nothing but a
victory for Mozilla and a victory for consumer activism. It should be clear by
now that you cannot run a large company in the public eye while you espouse
vitriolic and discriminatory views that belong in the last century.

~~~
wyclif
Except that he didn't "espouse vitriolic and discrimatory views." A majority
of voters in CA pulled the lever for Prop 8. 70% of African-American voters in
CA voted "yes" for Prop 8. Doesn't sound discriminatory to me. What it sounds
like is political correctness run amok, and punishment for thought crime.

~~~
PhasmaFelis
You seem to be under the impression that no majority vote can be
discriminatory. I cannot rightly apprehend such a confusion of ideas.

