
Brendan Eich and Mozilla - alecdbrooks
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2014/04/05/brandon-eich-and-mozilla/
======
MrZongle2
I thought Scalzi's take on the issue was one of the more objective that I've
seen lately. He's correct, of course: as a private organization, Mozilla
reserves the right to hire and fire (which _would_ have been Eich's fate had
he not resigned) as they see fit as long as such action does not run afoul of
state or federal labor laws....which this does not.

Mozilla was concerned about their appearance in the public eye, and chose to
align themselves with one particular side of the issue. Again, as is their
right. Eich was not denied any First Amendment right, as the U.S. Government
was not involved.

But let's not kid ourselves: those vigorously cheering Eich's departure aren't
considering the whole picture. If this were 1950, Mozilla would be chock-full
of white men eager to hustle the CEO out the door were it disclosed that he
was gay or had donated to a Socialist/Communist organization.

"Tolerance" had nothing to do with what happened to Eich. This was the Jacobin
mob in action.

~~~
Osmose

      > Mozilla reserves the right to hire and fire (which would have been Eich's fate 
      > had he not resigned)
    

While I agree that Scalzi's post is a much more objective take on the events,
you're false on this point. Brendan resigned of his own accord, and the board
even tried to get him to stay on in another role even if he stepped down from
CEO, but Brendan declined because he thought it would be better for Mozilla if
he didn't.

(See [https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/05/faq-on-ceo-
resignat...](https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/05/faq-on-ceo-
resignation/.))

~~~
MrZongle2
And why did he resign?

Mozilla had become a hostile work environment for him.

How would have staying on changed _any_ of that? The die had been cast.

------
muyuu
There is a lot more to this issue than that.

The reactions outside and inside of the company showed very little tolerance,
and between dialogue/engagement and intimidation/suppression, the latter was
chosen. This in itself is a massive problem.

I read a lot of nonsense lately about this being "the free market", "he can
defend whatever he wants but then face the consequences", etc. Do these people
realise that the exact same arguments were used for the suppression of gays?
how are these valid now? is this the kind of discourse people support in the
Valley?

But even worse than that is the argument that nothing illegal was done. Yep,
the same as stripping Alan Turing of his awards was legal at the time, or put
him under "treatment", or marginalising and ostracising him.

Quit focusing in the legalese and look at the lack of compassion as human
beings people have for those who dissent in a way that _offends_ them.

~~~
rebelidealist
I wish he had stuck thru the storm. I support gay marriage, but no one should
be made to apologize for a belief that half of the country (including Obama)
agreed with at the time. He was a consummate professional that did not slander
anyone else based on their belief. Now we are slandering him thru a social
media shit storm.

OkCupid should be ashamed for themselves for their cheap move leveraging their
large user base. Brandan Eich = "deny love and instead enforce misery, shame,
and frustration are our enemies"

Really, he is your enemy? He make your site work with JS and Firefox. Without
both, internet browsing will suck today. Please OkCupid, show him some respect
and a benefit of doubt.

Mozilla failed to back the cofounder that worked tirelessly for them for 16
years. They never emphasized after 16 years in an executive role, his personal
vote did not have any effect on his ability to lead a diverse team. Hope his
next company will appreciate his contributions more.

~~~
dragonwriter
Eich's 2008 pro-Prop 8 view was not shared by Obama, who expressly spoke out
in 2008 against both Prop 8 specifically, and attempts to write same-sex
marriage bans into constitutions generally.

Not sure why the “Eich was wronged” crowd raises this lie so often.

~~~
rebelidealist
Check out Obama's own word.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6K9dS9wl7U](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6K9dS9wl7U)

------
badman_ting
Finally, some sanity on this issue. Thank you, thank you.

> "I mean, isn’t this _supposed_ to be how things work?"

> "But, but… Mr. Eich should be free to believe what he wants, and to
> contribute to any political cause he so chooses! Well, and so he is, and I
> would, as they say, defend to the death his right to do so. What he is _not_
> free from — and this is the thing which people seem to fall down on again
> and again — are the _consequences_ of his actions."

~~~
gcp
I don't get this viewpoint.

You can say whatever you want, as long as you don't want a bullet in your
head. Does anyone recognize that as freedom of speech? I doubt so.

Clearly we recognize freedom of speech as the ability to speak out with some
limit on the repercussions of that. I'm not clear what they should be, but
there certainly are some.

~~~
devindotcom
"Freedom of speech" is a guarantee that the government will not curtail your
ability to say what you want on whatever topic, with some specific
limitations.

You can say whatever you want. If I say "you know what, I don't think black
and white kids should go to the same school," I assume the liability for that
statement. I may think it's reasonable, and other may as well, but the fact is
in this day and age that statement and sentiment will do me all kinds of
damage. Especially if I'm a public figure.

Are we actively working against people who believe differently from us? Yes,
that is called activism. As long as it is nonviolent resistance, civil
disobedience, or simply speaking out, we are within our rights and fighting
for what we think is important: equal civil rights for all people.

Will that get people fired? Hell yes. You think superintendents who were in
favor of segregated schools didn't lose their jobs? You think diners that
wouldn't serve black people didn't go out of business? Activism aims at
producing consequences, whether it's changed laws, greater visibility, or the
removal of people who support the opposite cause. In the case of civil rights
the stakes are high enough and the groups large enough that major consequences
are possible. Eich was one of them. Here's to a hundred more!

------
htk
I'm not religious but I do agree with the logic behind this comment:

"So we Catholics can start lobbying to remove all CEOs who advocate pro-
Homosexual behavior or in anyway supported attacks on traditional marriage and
religious freedom, following the same reason as Mr. Scalzi?"

~~~
nobodysfool
Are they not doing that already?

------
saraid216
I haven't been following this much, but it's sort of amusing and annoying when
someone mirrors my thoughts on a subject so well.

The really bad thing that happened in this entire drama was that the list of
donors was released to the public. That shouldn't have happened. Some quick
googling, on the other hand, yielded this:

[http://www.gayfresno.com/content/view/669/](http://www.gayfresno.com/content/view/669/)

To which I can ultimately only say, "Sigh."

~~~
devindotcom
Personally I disagree - I think donations to political causes and
organizations should be considered _public_ speech. Participation in a
democracy takes 'a certain amount of civic courage.'

~~~
gcp
This makes it impossible for a minority movement to slowly gain traction.

Why do you think secrecy in voting is widely considered to be necessary for
true democracy?

~~~
devindotcom
It's not impossible, and while some forms of secrecy are necessary, I don't
think they are "widely considered to be necessary," even if "true democracy"
was a well-settled concept that happened to agree with your understanding of
it. We just don't see eye to eye on this and likely won't ever.

~~~
saraid216
You're basically not saying anything except, "I disagree."

Voting is the same type of public, political speech that donations are.
Indeed, in a world where money is indisputably an overwhelmingly dominant
medium through which votes are gained (that is effectively the _point_ of
donations), they are practically synonymous.

------
panarky
I've been searching for an analogy to neutralize the political sentiment and
to focus on the facts.

Scalzi nailed it with the gun-rights comparison. If your community values the
right to keep and bear arms, and if you make a private donation to support gun
control, then maybe you shouldn't lead that community.

This article helped me understand this unfortunate incident, thank you.

~~~
asadotzler
"If your community values the right to keep and bear arms"

and if your community is made up of people who have hundreds of different
points of view on the right to keep and bear arms... for example, any
community that extends beyond the borders of the United States where the
conversation may have entirely different contexts?

How many of you making claims about the Mozilla community are actually a part
of that community? How many of you are part of an organization with critical
resources coming from over 100 countries and languages, not to mention every
major world religion and the non-religious? If you're not, then speculating on
what the Mozilla Community values is just that, speculation.

I see a lot of people on the Internet deciding for themselves what the Mozilla
Community values. I see a lot of people leaping to conclusions based on a few
tweets from a few Mozilla employees, while ignoring all the much more nuanced
and longer-form blog posts from many far more experienced and long-term
Mozilla employees and community members expressing very different views.

(Are we really so lazy that tweets are more effective in establishing the
acceptable "facts on the ground" even when there are more robust, compelling,
and accurate information available in longer-form blog posts? That's a fucking
shame, IMO.)

------
Camillo
Mozilla was founded to protect open standards on the web against the threat
posed by _private_ actors. But, as people keep arguing, we should only be
concerned about interference from the _state_.

Since the state is not threatening Brendan Eich's freedom of speech, there is
no issue there; and since the state is not threatening open web standards,
Mozilla's existence is completely unnecessary.

The obvious conclusion is that Mr. Eich saw that this was the case, and
voluntarily chose to abandon the now-obsolete organization. Everything is as
it should be.

------
MisterWebz
So I guess we should boycott every CEO that we don't agree with?

~~~
saraid216
That actually happens more than you think.

The difference is that it usually doesn't work.

