Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

It's his personal view. What does freedom mean if it's only about views that everyone likes?



In my opinion, appointing someone as CEO can not be base purely on professional performance. The CEO position is too public to ignore personal actions. Eich is of course allowed to have his own opinion on issues, such as gay marriage. But now being CEO of Mozilla, Mozilla has to ask themselves if his personal views are in line with the views/mission of Mozilla as a company.

The freedom to have your own opinion on things does not protect you from the consequences of those opinions.


>> The freedom to have your own opinion on things does not protect you from the consequences of those opinions.

Yes. In the same vein, people publicly calling out their employers in social media (even when justified) should also realize that it's a potentially career limiting move.

I'm pretty sure there's a significant number of companies and HR managers who would be reluctant to hire people who have engaged in this type of communication in the past.


His personal view is that a subset of humans do not deserve equal rights afforded to everyone else. It's not that he votes for a different party, that's not a problem. It's that he actively wants to deny rights to certain people, some of whom are under his employ.

I wouldn't want a member of the KKK running my organization either, and I would imagine most minorities would speak out about that as well. Racist or anti-gay, a bigot is a bigot. This isn't about politics or personal views. It's about denying human beings their deserved civil liberties for no good reason at all. Would you want to work for someone who hates you enough to force a law to break apart your family?


If you deny him his job for this act, donating money to a legitimate political campaign, you're denying him his rights. He has the right to his opinion and to voice that opinion.


No one has a right to hold any particular job, especially not one as public facing as CEO. You may have the right to work, but you don't have the right to work in one specific job at one specific company.


Of course you do. You can't legally be fired for saying, "I am a member of the Republican Party." Your political views (and that's what, in the end, this is) are protected, not when they are shared by everyone, but specifically when they are not.

Listen, I get where you're coming from. This is an important issue for me too. (As an aside: I have spent an inordinate amount of time working with one of the world's largest human rights organizations, including time on the board of directors for one of its structures.) I like and appreciate your passion to fight the good fight.

But! Be careful when you reach into your toolbag to fight that fight. The ends never justify the means. If we violate one person's rights by trying to protect another person's rights, we'll descend into chaos.

Always be respectful that in 7+ billion people, we're going to have a lot of opinions.

We must stop behaviors that are directly harmful. But we must always also protect people's opinions.

They're important. You have the freedom to believe whatever you want to believe. The minute that opinion crosses into a behavior -- boom! You can drop the ax. People have the right to any opinion but not any behavior. Do you see? If Brendan wants to donate money to a bill that would do x, he can. If he punishes an employee because they're x, that's wrong. (And you cannot jump in and say, "He will have a behavior because of his opinion.")

The way to handle this is to respect his opinion and be on guard that no behavior follows from it. Period. Put that important passion instead into educating and enlightening the populace. Put it into doing positive work.

Forcing Brendan to step down because he donated money to a legitimate political proposition is witch-hunting and shameful. This issue deserves better than that.


Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence. He is free to express his opinions of gay people. They are free to express their opinions of him. See how that works? Everybody's free to say their piece.

Of course, the problem here isn't his view, which nobody actually knows. It's that he helped strip a civil right from a bunch of people, including some of those he will now be in charge of.


>> He is free to express his opinions of gay people.

Context matters though. If you make these opinions at the workplace and someone feels threatened, discriminated against or harassed, there are legal repercussions.

And I assume this goes both ways. If you have an unpopular view that is expressed outside the workplace but are harassed by your coworkers, there is a risk of legal repercussions on those coworkers too.


Context matters some. But it's not like people's opinions reverse when they walk into the office.

If he is biased against gays, a concern raised by helping fund the removal of one of their civil rights, people can be reasonably afraid that this will eventually affect them in the workplace.

It need not be something obvious, either. Most decisions made by CEOs, especially decisions on who to reward and promote, are almost entirely judgment calls. Do you want to work for a guy who might not treat you fairly? "Yes" and "no" are both reasonable answers.


Just to clarify, by context, I was referring to how free he is to express his opinions. Outside of the workplace, he can say whatever he wants short of what the law allows.

In the workplace, anti-discrimination and harassment laws do not make him free to express his opinions.

>> If he is biased against gays, a concern raised by helping fund the removal of one of their civil rights, people can be reasonably afraid that this will eventually affect them in the workplace.

I would think this concern would be true of any manager who has a fundamentalist interpretation of a particular religion too.


Interesting. I hadn't considered whether anti-discrimination laws would constrain him from expressing his political opinions at work.


Because the line about private activities staying private doesn't apply to conservatives for some reason.


After a public figure speaks in public about those views, they become much less "personal."


Yeah, and the employee's view is that he's not fit for CEO. I'm sick of this line of thought that he can have his views but nobody else can. Especially because if it were a different issue than gay marriage nobody would be saying that.


How far does it go? Would you say the same about a nazi or KKK member?


The Chicago police protected neo-nazis when they marched in Skokie--at a time when there were residents there who still had tattoos from the camps.

So, yeah, we should strive to protect freedom of speech and be tolerant, even when people are shitbags.


Yes, I would expect the government to protect his right to free speech and political opinion. However, that doesn't mean anyone has to respect his opinions, much like neo-nazis don't garner much respect in public opinion (but the police will work to protect their safety when expressing their opinion).


Freedom of speech is for both sides, for CEOs who are anti-gay and for any employee who ask him to leave for being so.


Godwin's Law in 16 minutes. Not bad.


That's not a Godwin. Nazis were/are well known to promote hate based on differences between people and promote laws to keep certain groups oppressed. It's a perfectly valid comparison.


It did sound like a comparision, my bad.


Saying "Godwin's Law" is not an argument, FFS




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: