Mozilla CEO resigns because of Prop 8 donation in 2008

[crazy canuck]

There are many, many jobs where you should keep from publically speaking out on certain issues if you don't want to hurt your career. This is and always will be so. You may as well be upset with gravity.

I find it odd that people would be offended to learn that there are consequences for acting in the public sphere.

[Sheilbh]

Current?  Boycots has been a tool of the left for a long time.  If anything my bet would be that boycots were a lot more frequent in the 60s and 70s.

There's been a few lately that have annoyed me. They seem less about punishing actions or policies and more about enforcing opinion - exactly like the moral majority.

I am not so sure the argument has been "won".  These are early days and I think the US in particular is a long way from accepting that gay marriage is normative.  The debate has certainly been won here in Canada - to the extent that the most conservative PM in a long time will not touch this issue.  If it ever comes to that in the US then I think you can declare victory in that country.

If you look through these, we're negotiating the terms of the surrender:
http://features.pewforum.org/same-sex-marriage-attitudes/

If there's one social conservative issue the GOP should (and in my view will) dump, it'll be this one. You're right they are early days. But from the perspective of many other social reforms the entire gay rights movement is in early days. It's been legal for less than 50 years in England and sodomy laws were only struck down recently in the US. I can't think of any other issue from the past that's seen opinion move so quickly and decisively from one side of the argument to the other.

As I say we've won. We shouldn't spend our time punishing previous opponents and getting heretics to don ashes. I think we'd be better focusing on, say, Uganda and Kenya and India and Russia and what we can do to help there.

[OttoVonBismarck]

It's become much riskier to publicly participate in politics at all if you want to have a life in the public eye.

I am not sure that is such a bad thing.  People should be held accountable for the manner in which they participate in the political process.  The problem is people are not held accountable by a reasonable electorate (and I suppose as this story shows a reasonable public).  Instead what we see more and more is an electorate/public attracted by extreme positions.

We're in maybe broad agreement, but disagreement on the specifics of this issue. If you put stuff out there, consequences are going to happen. That's life, I don't see how you remove that nor is it desirable.

But all Eich did was donate. I don't even believe, as a matter of course, that contributions to groups that support certain sides of a ballot referendum were even typically public record--because they had to have a big court case to get them all published in the California case. Same thing with signing a petition to recall the Governor of Wisconsin, that's actually pretty close to outright voting, which should be private.

So for one, I think just having your name on a contribution list shouldn't elicit this kind of reaction, and two, I'm doubtful such lists should be published. If he had been running a blog where he had made his political opinions known, or just spoken to the wrong reporter or made a facebook post or twitter post or whatever I'd take little issue with what had happened.

[Jacob]

I also find it kind of troubling. I don't agree with him but he just had the same view as Pres Obama did just a few years ago. He just had a different opinion on what marriage is. That doesn't make the guy some kind of demon, unless he was doing and saying a lot worse things.  Millions of Californians had the same view.

If he had - rather than has - that view, but has evolved past it he could have offered a sincere apology and some sort of significant gesture that he'd changed his views.

He chose to stick to his "just having a different opinion on what marriage is", which for many people - these days - is not "just" but fundamentally treating a category of fellow citizens as being second class akin to "just having a different opinion on racial segregation".

[OttoVonBismarck]

I also find it kind of troubling. I don't agree with him but he just had the same view as Pres Obama did just a few years ago. He just had a different opinion on what marriage is. That doesn't make the guy some kind of demon, unless he was doing and saying a lot worse things.  Millions of Californians had the same view.

If he had - rather than has - that view, but has evolved past it he could have offered a sincere apology and some sort of significant gesture that he'd changed his views.

He chose to stick to his "just having a different opinion on what marriage is", which for many people - these days - is not "just" but fundamentally treating a category of fellow citizens as being second class akin to "just having a different opinion on racial segregation".

He's actually never explained his opinion. When it came out years ago he had made the contribution he offered no explanation, and all he's done since is note that Mozilla respects full equality for its LGBT employees and treats them equally int he workplace and is committed to workplace diversity.

He has basically taken no public stance on the issue, other than making a contribution, which was only I believe made public through court order and probably not anticipated when he made the contribution. If he was out there doing the things you're talking about or saying the things you're talking about publicly I'd maybe feel the same way.  But part of me feels like he was engaging pretty exclusively in private (non-publicized) political action which all of us have a right to do, and I'm not sure it's great that people are combing this lists to find targets for political/public retribution.

[Capetan Mihali]

If you look through these, we're negotiating the terms of the surrender:
http://features.pewforum.org/same-sex-marriage-attitudes/

The last graphic puts the lie to the commonplace that blacks are radically more opposed to gay marriage than whites.  43% vs. 54% in support respectively is a noticeable difference, but not nearly as extreme as the differences along political affiliation or religion lines.

[Jacob]

As I say we've won. We shouldn't spend our time punishing previous opponents and getting heretics to don ashes. I think we'd be better focusing on, say, Uganda and Kenya and India and Russia and what we can do to help there.

In the context of the US, I think you are being much to relaxed about victory. The abortion battle was "won" too, and that victory has turned into a not-victory in many places in the US through a thousand cuts. To assume that the victory on gay marriage is lasting, or even solid, when it's still not legal in many states seems optimistic to the point of negligence.

[Jacob]

He's actually never explained his opinion. When it came out years ago he had made the contribution he offered no explanation, and all he's done since is note that Mozilla respects full equality for its LGBT employees and treats them equally int he workplace and is committed to workplace diversity.

He has basically taken no public stance on the issue, other than making a contribution, which was only I believe made public through court order and probably not anticipated when he made the contribution. If he was out there doing the things you're talking about or saying the things you're talking about publicly I'd maybe feel the same way.  But part of me feels like he was engaging pretty exclusively in private (non-publicized) political action which all of us have a right to do, and I'm not sure it's great that people are combing this lists to find targets for political/public retribution.

That's a persuasive point regarding the expected level of privacy for that kind of action.

My comment was more directed at the "Obama agreed with him back then too, why did people forgive him" type arguments; to which my response is that Obama evolved since then, and I believe that Eich had the option of similarly evolving and recanting and that could have headed the matter off.

He chose not to, and that's his prerogative. But many many people have had their opinion on the matter evolve this last decade or so; Eich could have found plenty of political cover with them if he had wanted to.

[Neil]

Surely he should have suspected that the homo goons would get the donation lists somehow, and endeavour to punish everyone on them.  That's the way things work these days. 

[Valmy]

Hopefully Otto will respond to my post to him.  I have no idea what you are on about now.

Ok look if you only want to Otto to respond send a PM don't post it here.  What about my point is not clear?  I thought I was asking a pretty straightforward question.

[Valmy]

There are many, many jobs where you should keep from publically speaking out on certain issues if you don't want to hurt your career. This is and always will be so. You may as well be upset with gravity.

He did not do or say anything publicly.  If he was outspoken publicly about this issue I would totally understand.

[Capetan Mihali]

There are many, many jobs where you should keep from publically speaking out on certain issues if you don't want to hurt your career. This is and always will be so. You may as well be upset with gravity.

He did not do or say anything publicly.  If he was outspoken publicly about this issue I would totally understand.

He provided a group with money so that *they* could be outspoken publicly about the issue on his behalf.  Not exactly the same as expressing his feelings on gay marriage over dinner.

[Valmy]

He provided a group with money so that *they* could be outspoken publicly about the issue on his behalf.  Not exactly the same as expressing his feelings on gay marriage over dinner.

Yes a tiny sum six years ago.  For a person like him he might as well have given them a penny he found on the street.  He had done nothing to abuse his public position nor had he done anything in his capacity in Mozilla to be anti-gay.  If he was using his position to be outspoken in his opposition to gay marriage such that he was actually a threat to them in some way I would get it.

But this is hardly an isolated incident, it is more the phenomenon in general that makes me nervous.  Anything political you might have posted on your facebook or wherever years ago can someday take you down.  Maybe you just signed that petition to get that annoying activist to leave you alone.  Maybe you temporarily joined a nutty religion but got better.  I know I have flirted with some stupid ideas in the past (or rather constantly as anybody who reads Languish might note ) and while I have no idea what is out there it would be pretty embarrassing if somebody found something and I had to publicly explain myself and beg forgiveness if I were to miraculously ever achieve a position of status.

[Capetan Mihali]

He provided a group with money so that *they* could be outspoken publicly about the issue on his behalf.  Not exactly the same as expressing his feelings on gay marriage over dinner.

Yes a tiny sum six years ago.  For a person like him he might as well have given them a penny he found on the street.  He had done nothing to abuse his public position nor had he done anything in his capacity in Mozilla to be anti-gay.  If he was using his position to be outspoken in his opposition to gay marriage such that he was actually a threat to them in some way I would get it.

I don't really disagree on this particular issue, I'm more interested in how this kerfuffle relates to the recent Supreme Court decision (and its ancestors) about political contributions being treated as speech and thus entitled to (almost) the same constitutional protection as "traditional" forms of speech.

I share Otto's concern that open involvement in political life is becoming off-limits for any public figure, other than politicians themselves or those that dedicate themselves to the role (like the Koch brothers or some Hollywood stars, maybe Susan Sarandon for example.)

[OttoVonBismarck]

These lists really became a concern of mine back when the Scott Walker stuff happened, I hadn't followed this as closely but I have similar reservations about it now that it's exploded like it has (at least in tech-land.) I was on a long road trip awhile back and tuned into, I believe, an episode of This American Life. It covered the story of a kid at one of the University of Wisconsin schools sort of like the SUNY system there are multiple quasi-independent universities within the University of Wisconsin umbrella, with the Madison campus being the main one.

Anyway, some kid they talk about who sounds like your typical apple pie and baseball white class American kid had become involved in student life and various random bullshit that gets you notoriety as a do-gooder college kid. He also was politically conservative, voted against Scott Walker's removal from  office and was active in supporting Walker and the GOP. Anyway, I guess the UW system has a "student representative" to the UW Board of Governors, and the Governor himself actually gets to pick the student who receives the honor.  Basically staffers comb through a short list and then forward their recommendation to the Governor. This kid that Ira Glass had on the show was the one they chose. So they're all set to give him the spot, he's gotten his hand shake with the Governor and I guess there's also some official ceremony and finalization that has to happen. In the meantime, the Governor's staff finds the kid's name on the recall petition.

The kid basically explains that he signed it when he had just turned 18, he had no real political opinions, and his mom (a public school teacher very opposed to Scott Walker) would have liked it if he signed it, so he did. He didn't give it a second thought. Like a lot of people he developed more of his political opinions in the next few years in college. But ironically, the simple act of signing his name now had him in trouble. The Governors aide basically told him not to worry, they were just asking him the question and they'd talk again the next morning. The next morning he gets a call telling him that they've had to rescind him as the Governors nominee to the Board of Governors. In the minor political fallout following this (a Republican State Senator actually went to bat for the kid, disliking the political witch hunt of it all) the Governor and his staff deny that his signing the petition had anything to do with it, that they had simply decided on a better candidate etc etc.

Anyway, this wasn't a great tragedy. This was a student fluff position, it would've spiced his resume up a little bit but it's not really that big of a deal. Even the kid being interview honestly didn't seem that upset about it, he was  just kind of talking about it in a "wow, I can't believe they cared about this" kind of way. But if we're so petty that we're now doing stuff like combing lists for some student government type fluff position, that's just a bad sign to me.

Even worse in Wisconsin this list has been used to go after lots of people who hold other public offices. While they are public figures, I don't know  that it seems right that their political activities undertaken in what should be a private capacity should come into play. It feels really similar to punishing people more for what their opinion is versus what they actually do.