Mozilla CEO resigns due to gay marriage “controversy”
In the midst of a gay marriage controversy Brendan Eich has stepped down as CEO of Mozilla. What was the controversy? He had an opinion which is not considered to be politically correct. In other words be opposes gay marriage and donated to an anti-gay marriage group.
Mozilla Chief Executive Brendan Eich has stepped down, the company said on Thursday, after an online dating service urged a boycott of the company’s web browser because of a donation Eich made to opponents of gay marriage.
The software company came under fire for appointing Eich as CEO last month. In 2008, he gave money to oppose the legalization of gay marriage in California
To me the issue here is not whether or not gay marriage is right or wrong, it is not about whether you agree with gay marriage or you do not. To me this is much bigger than that for this is about free speech and the freedom a person has to express an opinion or to donate to a cause he believes in.
Because he had the gall to express a politically incorrect opinion and donate to a cause which is also politically incorrect in today’s day and age he is out of a job and I find this trend of stifling political opponents to be a very troubling trend.
At the same time, I am not saying that people do not have the right to boycott Mozilla if this is something they feel strongly about because I do the same, but that does not mean Mr. Eich has to conform with the despotism of public opinion–to quote Jonathan Stuart Mill in ‘On Liberty’– in order to make a living.
Trackbacks
- Good Morning America uses Westboro Baptist Church footage during a report on former Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich | America's Watchtower
- Open thread for Sunday, April 6th: Paranoid Android | America's Watchtower
- If Brendan Eich cannot be CEO of Mozilla is Hillary Clinton disqualified from being president? | America's Watchtower
America's Watchtower 
Reblogged this on The Grey Enigma.
LikeLike
Thank you.
LikeLike
Well, free speech works both ways. He is definitely free to donate to whomever he wishes with his private money. Those who disagree are also free to voice their free speech rights by boycotting his product. He is also free to step down as CEO – no one forced him.
Actions have consequences for everyone. That’s what the real world is like. You may not agree with the protestors, but their actions are the consequence of his. Simple as that.
LikeLike
You are right, and I stated in the post that the protesters have the right to do so, but there is a trend developing where people are not satisfied with merely protesting or boycotting and are not happy until that person is out of a job. We are seeing fear and intimidation being used to silence an opinion, not to debate an issue.
LikeLike
What fear and intimidation? Did anyone threaten him? Was he attacked?
LikeLike
We all complain about corporations being faceless giants, but in reality we want those corporations to remain faceless. When we learn about the companies and the CEOs we do not want them to have opinions or thoughts of their own. Those people now represent the company and because we have difficulty separating the two a CEO must remain politically correct. (Im not saying this is right or wrong)
This particular battle for civil rights has moved more quickly than the historical model and the adjustment time has been significantly shorter for opponents, but it is still a battle for civil rights. In a way you are asking the down trodden and their supporters to lay down their weapons. This man has plenty of money, he is not hurting. No physical violence has taken place to him or his family. (Though daily it does to homosexuals who are forced out of their jobs or are beaten for walking down the street) And although I agree, no man should be forced out of their job over their beliefs, the people have a right to know where and how their money is spent. And they have a right to boycott, as you said.
But in short, yes, we all must conform to leading public opinion. That is how society works. It ensures that change is slow and not merely a whim. Historically, this system does fail, Slavery took far too long to abolish and Prohibition was a huge mistake forced on the country. There are no easy answers, but looking forward is a good place to start.
LikeLike
I agree with everything you said except the part about people having a right to know how their money is spent. When this fellow made his contributions, he wasn’t using my money, or funds from the public treasury. He was spending his own money. Once word of his donation got out, though, however it happened, the information is now in the public domain.
By the same token, there are plenty of conservatives who won’t buy a Barbra Streisand album or attend a concert of hers – or even watch one on television, because they disagree with her politics.
And I think Steve went a bit overboard when he used language that suggests that this fellow is now wandering the streets wearing a sandwich board that says “Will work for food.” I’m sure that Eich is very well off already and will also be able to find another position, even if it’s not one that will keep him among the top 5% or so. He could probably open an auto dealership or sell insurance and make a nice salary doing so, just counting on notoriety alone.
Take good care and may God bless us all!
TGY
LikeLike
I have to say I got a kick at your sandwich board line, it made me laugh. Yes he will have no problem finding another job, but there is now the possibility that he will be hounded wherever he goes because these people will not be happy unless they can make him unemployable.
LikeLike
Relative to what I said about people having the right to privacy regarding how they spend their money, don’t take that to mean that I support the idea that people should be able to donate large amounts of money to political causes or candidates anonymously. I think that the right of the public to know where any candidate or group gets its resources from overrides an individual’s right to privacy.
‘Nuff said.
TGY
LikeLike
I re-read your post TGY, and it still wasn’t clear to me you were referring only to those on this blog. But either way, I see no mob, or mob mentality here on the Watchtower, only opposing opinions, which at this moment we still have a right to, and a right to dislike, or even hate other opinions.
But the point of THIS blog is that things have gone far beyond opinion. I have no idea who the Chicks privately give money to, and that’s how it should be, but to further an agenda Eich was outed. You say the “the…right to know” is more important than “the right to privacy”. That is what the NSA keeps telling us. When your professional work is flawless, but your private opinion can get you fired, something is very wrong. But I guess tyranny is in the eye of the beholder. May God help us all.
LikeLike
Bruce, while it is true that most of the people who comment here agree with what I write opposing views are always welcome and never deleted. It is also true that most people only visit websites and blogs with which they agree so it is natural that when somebody writes an opposing view it can seem as if there is a mob mentality against them when they respond to the comment but that does not make it so. Thank you for the defense.
The question which nobody seems to be asking is this; how did his personal donation become public in the first place? You are right, this was done to promote an agenda, pure and simple.
LikeLike
I wish I had time to respond to all these comments but I am at work so I will get to them when I can, but I want to say this; I disagree with the notion that we must conform with public opinion. Using your example of slavery, if public opinion at the time tolerated slavery wouldn’t the people of the time have to accept it? And if people have opposed gay marriage for decades shouldn’t we have to conform to that public opinion? The fact is that public opinion changes over time and as it does these issues must be debated.
LikeLike
‘You vill conform … you vill do as we say!’ A couple thoughts: What’s the end product of all this tolerance and free speech for some, but only if it fits the agenda? When ‘played out’ what’s the end product?
When ‘Foundational Principles’ go up against another set of contrary beliefs or ‘standards’ will there really be something better or just like our paper – non-back by gold – money, just another illusion and slide of hand society?
Where’s the end of the line of this type of division and control? I think that’s what is nagging at you Steve and the ‘new 4th wave’ of perceiving reality is still Nimrod-ic & Utopian. Good for the few and not so good for their slaves.
LikeLike
Exactly!
LikeLike
Well, Steve, of course they should be debated – that’s what’s happening here, mostly. But of all the people who are standing up for Mr. Eich’s right of free speech, who was standing up for the rights of the Dixie Chicks to speak freely? Wasn’t that the same tyranny of the mob being decried here?
Take good care and may God bless us all!
TGY
LikeLike
TGY, “…who was standing up for the rights of the Dixie Chicks…” almost everyone in the media! The President, all the MSM, most every Democrat politician, the university elite, most of the entertainment industry, and most of Hollywood. And NONE of the Chicks stepped down from anything.
LikeLike
Eh, Bruce,I didn’t ask if the president or the media supported them, I asked who in this group, who now are in high dudgeon over Mr. Eich’s decision to step down, supported the Dixie Chicks’ right to speak freely.
Frankly, it wouldn’t surprise me a bit to learn that some here had denounced them as traitors. Meantime, they had no place to “step down” from – they were entertainers. Care to let us in on their ability to earn money as entertainers after the radical right in this country freaked out over one of them criticizing the president? Why don’t you guys freak out the same was over Ted Nugent?
Take good care, and may God bless us all.
TGY
LikeLike
Yes they should be debated but Shawn stated flat out that we MUST comply with public opinion which would rule out debate and you stated that you agreed with everything he said except a point on knowing where people spend their money.
As far as the Dixie Chicks go; I did not like what they said and if I were a fan I probably would have stopped buying their CDs, but I will always defend a person’s right to say what they feel. I would never call for them to lose their record contract. There was a singer that I like who pissed me off with his statements and I stopped buying his records, and as I stated in the article we do have that right, but again I did not call for him to be drawn and quartered.
I very, very rarely agree with anything that Bill Maher says and I may react to what he says here but again he has the right to say it and I will never take that away from him.
Recently Stephen Colbert made a racist remark and many people where calling for him to be fired but I was not one of them. What he said might have been stupid and unfunny but he has that right. I cannot speak for the others here but I think I have been consistent.
On a side note; I quoted John Stuart Mill in the article and if you have not read ‘On Liberty’ I think you would find it quite interesting, especially the first part which is about the freedom of opinion for I think it fits in well with the conversation we are having here..
LikeLike
Here is a post made by a prominent gay author who basically takes the same stance as I have:
LikeLike
Well now, lets not take what I said out of context, entirely.
“But in short, yes, we all must conform to leading public opinion. That is how society works. It ensures that change is slow and not merely a whim. Historically, this system does fail, Slavery took far too long to abolish and Prohibition was a huge mistake forced on the country. There are no easy answers, but looking forward is a good place to start.”
The point I failed at making and may fail at again is that there is this drive in humanity to make everyone conform to their opinion. I was speaking of our sociological behavior NOT about a marxist utopian society. It is human behavior, keeping up with the jones, peer pressure and so on. Society reaches a norm (sorta) and then we begin to learn that maybe we are stepping on someone elses rights and didn’t realize it…or we did, but now it is being called out. So over time we adapt and a new norm is created. I could write this out in full and delve into the complexity, but I am relying on the reader to know something of their own behavior.
So, while my statement was that we must conform, the next sentence that followed should have helped explain my intentions, but as I said, I failed.
I am curious to how the CEO feels? Has he had a change of heart and is embarrassed by his actions? Would he want all of this attention? Is it not possible he feels like stepping down was the honorable and correct thing to do? Before anyone makes him a martyr for their side, whose side does he stand on?
Oh! Steve Dennis, gotta say, I am deeply impressed that you have continued to respond to comments. And that you haven’t dropped to the lowest common denominator and begun name calling. It is a breath of fresh air to see mature debating attempted. Thank you.
LikeLike
Shawn; first, thank you for the compliment. I do enjoy a debate as long as the person is respectful. With the exception of The Georgia Yankee most of the people who disagree with me come here and call me names and then leave. When that happens I simply thank them for stopping by and tell them I hope they return in the future. I think that is the best way to deal with them and I feel it must aggravate them that I do not let it get on my nerves for that is all they were trying to do.
I did not intentionally try to take your comment out of context, I guess I misunderstood your point, and probably jumped to conclusions when I read the “conform to public opinion” quote. I think I understand it better now and I also think that we agree on the issue of personal rights. One person’s rights end when they step on another person’s rights. That is a position that I hold as well.In a way that is what I was arguing in the first place.
LikeLike
The last man I heard speak like that was a fat bellied sheriff nearly 50 years ago when I was a long haired Hippie. He didn’t like dissenters much either.
You can use the same pattern of argument to justify discriminating against Jews, Christians, Gays, Blacks, Moslems, virtually any group you don’t like.
One of the most important keys to maintaining our democratic republic is that we must, at the very least, tolerate those we disagree with.
If we try to narrowly define what is acceptable by law or sanctimoniously rule that he had it coming because “Actions have consequences….”, making a difference of opinion into a near criminal act, then we have broken ourselves with the Cloward Piven strategy.
He was not publicly urging that anyone be lynched. There’s no allegation that he ever discriminated against anyone for anything. He made a modest financial contribution to a political cause he believed in. People on both sides worked or contributed to the cause they believed in. Should the supporters of the NRA or GLAAD be treated the same way? Should we organize campaigns to destroy anyone who is different than we are?
If you think about it, that “Actions have consequences” bit combined with a pressure campaign is functionally mob rule.
Remember the manager of the El Coyote restaurant in Los Angeles? When it was discovered that she, as a private individual, had contributed $100 in opposition to gay marriage, a mob descended on the restaurant, terrorizing the customers and staff. Look it up.
We have debates and elections to match ideas and try to establish the best course for our society. That’s how our democracy works. If you terrorize the opposition into silence, you cannot have a debate. That’s what the Ku Klux Klan did to deprive Black People of their rights as human beings.
Demonizing the opposition dehumanizes them, it takes away their rights as human beings.
Taking away their livelihood or punishing them for holding a dissenting opinion is an act of tyranny.
That’s the tyranny of the majority, the tyranny of the mob.
LikeLike
Well said! If you have not read John Stuart’s ‘On Liberty’ I think you should check it out for he makes basically the same point about the freedom of opinion and the tyranny of the majority–which he calls the despotism of public opinion. It is a great read.
LikeLike
Thank you, I’ll keep it in mind.
LikeLike
In PC Land can one be anti-beastiality or will PETA demonstrate for one to he fired and branded with the scarlet letter?
LikeLike
Are you being serious or are you just an internet troll?! An animal can not give consent, so beastiality is rape of an animal. PETA would see the human castrated. As for the scarlet letter, that is the letter A for adultery… so unless the man is cheating on his husband or wife with the animal he is raping, it doesn’t apply.
Should someone lose a high profile job for breaking the law? Depends on the law. Should someone lose a high profile job for being immoral? Depends if their morals are protected by the Constitution and what they did. Should someone lose a high profile job for being racist? Depends on the situation. Should someone lose a high profile job for being religious and sticking to their faith? Depends if their message is the message of the company they represent.
We can all live our lives the way we wish as long as it is legal and as long as we aren’t infringing on others rights. But when you work for a company with a high profile, your identity belongs to them… they get to make that call.
LikeLike
grow up
LikeLike
Eh? Thoughtfulness and clarity characterize most grownups’ conversation. Shaun’s response displayed both of those characteristics far more than your post did, and your latest response is just name-calling. I know you were trying to be funny, but you didn’t succeed, and he called you on it.
LikeLike
Eh, I think Peter asked if PETA would be against someone who was anti-bestiality. Kind of a non-sequitur, really, but PETA is itself anti-bestiality. And Hester wasn’t branded.
Otherwise, I agree with you.
TGY
LikeLike
It was just sarcasm Shawn.
LikeLike
Very poorly done, Steve. If someone’s anti-bestiality, why would PETA be upset with him? If he’d asked “if someone’s pro-bestiality . . .” It would at least have made logical sense. Otherwise, why would PETA get upset with someone who’s demonstrating supporting their position?
LikeLike
I know, Steve, but it was so poorly done it needed called out. And to be honest, it was enjoyable to do so.
LikeLike
I have been shamed so it’s best I stay away from gun, knives, ropes, open windows and tall buildings.
LikeLike
Wow! They aren’t kidding when they say the 3rd rail will kill you, good luck Steve on handling this firestorm. I, like CEO Eich, agree with President Obama’s on the gay marriage issue. That was the President Obama of May 15, 2012.
Totalitarianism has always allowed freedom of speech as long as it was approved speech. Orwell showed in his great book that control of speech is the best way to control the person. What they really want is to control the mind. While in college in the early 70’s, we talked about the mind police. Now, in 2014 we do in deed have the mind police, alive and well emanating from the left. Eich was told to “repudiate” his contribution ‘or else’
As I wrote back in those college days, “Man has no rights, merely privileges which can be taken and given at will”.
LikeLike
I am actually enjoying this, it is fun when something I write stirs debate such as this. And yes, by controlling speech by telling us what is acceptable speech and what is not acceptable speech they are controlling the narrative and when you control the narrative you control the people.
LikeLike
Remember Zappa’s secret brain police? …alive and well.
LikeLike
Yes Peter, and where do the brain police take you? To the RE-education camp of course, just like Mao did. And just like K.J. Un, you can have any hair style you want, as long as it is just like his.
LikeLike
I just followed your link to http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/04/03/the-hounding-of-brendan-eich/ The guy sounds pretty good. I followed some of his links and he sounded even better.
The scary part were the comments against him. Those guys would be just as happy working for Josef Stalin or Heinrich Himmler as they would for Barak the Great.
LikeLike
It gets pretty vicious doesn’t it?!
LikeLike
Someone like Sullivan is theoretically on the other side, but he still shows a bit of realization that Liberals are getting to be a vicious and tyrannical bunch.
I see a lot more future for him with the Tea Party and Neo Cons than I do with the Liberals. He’s the kind of guy who will get burned for heresy.
LikeLike
I would like to note that Mozilla is not a typical faceless corporation where the bottom line is the raison d’etre. It mainly is there to support the various other open source projects under the Mozilla name. To understand Mozilla, you need to understand the open source culture (which is founded on the notion of socialism) upon which they rely.
I would like to point out, it is held that a person is not entitled to a job. Eich’s beliefs and political speech was highly at odds with those of the rank and file that will be working for him. In addition to the employees, developers who write software that add value to Mozilla’s projects were opposed to his being CEO. Some developers were threatening to stop doing work for them (note: some of these developers are volunteers who are not being paid for their efforts). Eich was not going to work out and so he was let go (being a CEO he resigned because business leaders don’t get fired in this country).
Personally, I don’t think he should have been offered the job because he invented Javascript. Alas, I am in a very small minority.
I would also like to pose a question. How are we to get the government and corporations to change without resorting to so-called mob tactics?
The reason I ask this is because I have seen instances where conservatives engage in many of the same tactics. For example, some of the flyers I seen from the Tea Party protests (the establishment thanks you) were clearly based upon Alinsky’s works.
I’m not saying that either side is right or wrong but I am at a loss as to how does “The People” take back control is this country without engaging in “tyranny of the mob”.
LikeLike
That is an interesting point you made about Mozilla employees and the whole open source idea being based on the notion of socialism, however I was unaware that a boss needs to be of the same political mindset of his employees in order to be qualified for the job.
LikeLike
Terrant, that’s an interesting twist. You say “To understand Mozilla, you need to understand the open source culture” which I don’t. So, was it that “community” that drove Eich to resign? Or was it outsiders, with nothing more than an agenda to promote? I don’t know, but I sure would be suspicious of the latter. As for your “question. How are we to get the government and corporations to change without resorting to so-called mob tactics?” Well, in other countries, coups, assignations and civil wars are pretty typical. But we are a country of laws, and in order to effect change, we are supposed to be engaged and vote. But with 27% turn out at elections, we rather take the easy way out.
As far as corporations, my Econ prof used to say we vote with our feet and dollars. Somehow cell phones and computer companies respond, rather quickly, to market forces. Nobody forced Google to provide the most powerful search engine ever imagined. No, they did it because of market demand.
You might say Eich was forced to resign due to market forces, and you might be right. The South used to have ‘white only’ restaurants due to marked forces. But having seen the “Anonymous” mob here in CA, I hope that isn’t the way of the future.
LikeLike
A follow up Terrant to your question, what do we do? The President often talks about a “line in the sand” I was just convinced that what happened with Eich crossed such a line, and I just uninstalled Firefox. Will it do any goo? Will it make a difference? Who knows.
LikeLike
I thought something was wrong. I was here for prime-time.
LikeLike