Mozilla CEO resigns because of Prop 8 donation in 2008

[garbon]

I've mixed feelings. Is there any proof though that gay groups were agitating to make this happen? Seems like it was a Mozilla decision.

Also, I always dislike the "you need to be tolerant of intolerance". On Yahoo news, commentators were complaining that he should be left alone as his invention of JavaScript was game changing.

[The Brain]

I don't think it's relevant to the core issue, but FWIW it seems to me that being prevented by law to marry the one you love and want to marry is a bigger loss than not being CEO of Mozilla in a free market.

[Capetan Mihali]

I also find it troubling that a Cal law allows people who donate to something to be found out, making them subject to harassment.

If political contributions are treated as speech, there's no legitimate reason to think they should be kept private.  If you support a cause by pamphleting for them, circulating a newsletter, or by going to a protest, everybody know who you're supporting.  Just because you have enough money to try to influence politics by large donations rather than other ways doesn't mean you should get specially privileges to secrecy.

[Admiral Yi]

If political contributions are treated as speech, there's no legitimate reason to think they should be kept private.  If you support a cause by pamphleting for them, circulating a newsletter, or by going to a protest, everybody know who you're supporting.  Just because you have enough money to try to influence politics by large donations rather than other ways doesn't mean you should get specially privileges to secrecy.

I don't follow your logic.  People are not required by law to sign their name to pamphlets or articles they write.

[garbon]

Millions of Californians had the same view.

And that was a great shame/disappointment/evil. I took a sick day so I wouldn't cry in the office.

[Capetan Mihali]

If political contributions are treated as speech, there's no legitimate reason to think they should be kept private.  If you support a cause by pamphleting for them, circulating a newsletter, or by going to a protest, everybody know who you're supporting.  Just because you have enough money to try to influence politics by large donations rather than other ways doesn't mean you should get specially privileges to secrecy.

I don't follow your logic.  People are not required by law to sign their name to pamphlets or articles they write.

True.  I meant that the people handing them out (pamphlets) or selling them (newsletters) are going to be necessarily identifiable.  Anonymous pamphlets clearly played a big role in political movements of olden times, but today, it's going to be very hard to engage in effective political speech using unsigned material that doesn't involve many people being publically identified as supporters/fellow travelers, whether you're foisting it into people's hands or registering non-profit corporation to organize the mailing of newsletters.

[derspiess]

People are certainly free to boycott, vote with their pocketbooks (so to speak), etc. but I find it a little unsettling that people were willing to make such a huge issue out of this guy's past donation.  His stance on gay marriage didn't have anything to do with heading an organization like Mozilla-- until some loudmouths made that so. 

Also getting a bit tiresome that wanting to preserve the traditional definition of marriage equates to 'intolerance' and a virulent hatred of gays in some peoples' minds.  Keep it in perspective, for crying out loud.  People can disagree with you without automatically being monsters.

[Capetan Mihali]

People can disagree with you without automatically being monsters.

Source?

[The Brain]

His stance on gay marriage didn't have anything to do with heading an organization like Mozilla-- until some loudmouths made that so. 

Welcome to the market. Obviously as an American you find it weird and unsettling.

[alfred russel]

If political contributions are treated as speech, there's no legitimate reason to think they should be kept private.  If you support a cause by pamphleting for them, circulating a newsletter, or by going to a protest, everybody know who you're supporting.  Just because you have enough money to try to influence politics by large donations rather than other ways doesn't mean you should get specially privileges to secrecy.

In a free society, you have a right to make yourself heard, but that doesn't mean you can hide behind pseudonyms and subterfuge to keep your identity secret. The founding fathers would never have failed to put their name to their arguments when debating the constitution, for instance.

[Admiral Yi]

In a free society, you have a right to make yourself heard, but that doesn't mean you can hide behind pseudonyms and subterfuge to keep your identity secret. The founding fathers would never have failed to put their name to their arguments when debating the constitution, for instance.

Good point "alfred russel."   

[Valmy]

I've mixed feelings. Is there any proof though that gay groups were agitating to make this happen? Seems like it was a Mozilla decision.

Also, I always dislike the "you need to be tolerant of intolerance". On Yahoo news, commentators were complaining that he should be left alone as his invention of JavaScript was game changing.

I don't think you need to be tolerant of intolerance either.  But there is some space between that and the labeling that goes on.  Even really progressive people will make one little slip of the tongue become pariahs.  We should be a little tolerant of people's foibles.  Or it may just be me tiring of the constant outrage over every little thing.

[garbon]

I've mixed feelings. Is there any proof though that gay groups were agitating to make this happen? Seems like it was a Mozilla decision.

Also, I always dislike the "you need to be tolerant of intolerance". On Yahoo news, commentators were complaining that he should be left alone as his invention of JavaScript was game changing.

I don't think you need to be tolerant of intolerance either.  But there is some space between that and the labeling that goes on.  Even really progressive people will make one little slip of the tongue become pariahs.  We should be a little tolerant of people's foibles.  Or it may just be me tiring of the constant outrage over every little thing.

Is donating money to an effort to prevent a certain group from marrying a foible?

[OttoVonBismarck]

My first point is, CEO is a political position more or less. I always scoff when people cry "but FREE SPEECH" in response to something being done by a company or non-governmental org. So that all applies here, Eich has a right to do/say basically whatever he wants politically and Mozilla has a right to react however it wants as well within the bounds of the law. Choosing to force someone out is within those bounds for sure. As a side note, the Mozilla Foundation is a non-profit organization that owns 100% of the for-profit Mozilla corporation. There aren't actually any traditional shareholders/owners of Mozilla Foundation.

Second point, I don't agree with the "ideological purity test" that the lefty tech industry imposed on Eich. It seems weird to me that Barack Obama only has to say "it's all good" a few years after getting elected in 2008 with a public disapproval of gay marriage and many of these same Silicon Valley ideological crusaders against Eich were more than happy to vote for the guy. Eich has never said anything publicly about gay marriage, he donated $1,000 and that's it. It just seems like a crazy double standard  to just gloss over people whose words and actions genuinely affect gay marriage in a big way (you know, like the POTUS running for reelection) but insist a guy who is only minimally involved in the political process lose his job over something 52% of voters that day agreed with.

I don't think part of changing cultural views should be trying to brand scarlet letters on anyone who held the view that lost out in the court of public opinion. That kind of recrimination is what typified a lot of really unstable revolutions/regimes throughout history and for better or worse is absolutely not what we have done in America. By and large we helped the South rebuild after the ACW, people weren't executed en masse etc. After Jim Crow the supporters of the old regime were not driven beneath the Earth and locked away.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Is donating money to an effort to prevent a certain group from marrying a foible?

What about running for POTUS while publicly saying you're against gay marriage? If people were willing to forgive Barry for that it seems odd they can't forgive a guy who never said a word about the issue and hasn't done anything in regard to the issue since 2008 (back when his position was shared publicly by the guy who went on to become President.)