What are you're thoughts about the termination of the Mozilla CEO for a political contribution.



  • I believe that it is an abridgement of his Constitutional free speech rights. I will never use another Mozilla product again. I, personally, I have a rather quixotic personality and my Father taught me to vote with feet and money. This is just one of many little jousts. I no longer use Apple products because of their political stands. I do not use any Google product because they have violated my trust. No email, no android, nothing. Of course, it doesn't effect much, but I did once kick a windmill. What are your thoughts.



  • My understanding is that it was because of the revealing of a simple $1,000 contribution he made in 2008 to an organization supporting California's voter referendum that attempted to define marriage as only between a man and woman. Apparently he was never an activist or outspoken commentator on the subject, he simply gave a modest one-time contribution to support a ballot initiative he believed in.

    There's something profoundly wrong when the mind-police and the political-correctness Gestapo hound you out of an unrelated job for simply once doing what you have every Constitutional, legal, and moral right to do. And there's something even more wrong when all the so-called "free-speech" advocates stand idly by and let it happen - and, in some cases, even participate in such hunts. The irony of all this is that the current President of the US publicly stated the exact same view in 2008 about marriage… yet one can notice that nobody is attempting to hound him out of office for that. Double standard, anyone?



  • @Blackbird:

    There's something profoundly wrong when the mind-police and the political-correctness Gestapo hound you out of an unrelated job for simply once doing what you have every Constitutional, legal, and moral right to do. And there's something even more wrong when all the so-called "free-speech" advocates stand idly by and let it happen - and, in some cases, even participate in such hunts.

    In fact it's so wrong that I doubt it's the true reason behind the opposition to him.



  • He maybe has some moral standards, which are no longer acceptable in society today. He does not have freedom of speech, opinion or association. He has been labelled as having a phobia, a particular phobia which is effectively illegal and therefore lost his job.



  • @sjdgls:

    He maybe has some moral standards, which are no longer acceptable in society today. He does not have freedom of speech, opinion or association. He has been labelled as having a phobia, a particular phobia which is effectively illegal and therefore lost his job.

    Those moral standards are held by at least half the population of the US. His problem is general California and specifically the area around San Francisco and Silicon Valley. That area is out of step with most of the US.
    A phobia is an abnormal fear of something. I doubt this guys contribution and beliefs are abnormal and fear based.
    Anyway thanks for your input.



  • What's fundamentally wrong is the tendency to activism without understanding the issues involved.

    There have been two calls for boycott of Mozilla within a week, one as stupid as the other. Neither have made Mozilla or the world a better place, but it has made the activists mighty pleased with themselves.



  • Yes, media…



  • As some others have already observed, I, too, am now boycotting all Mozilla products. Further, I am using my 10,000 followers on my commercial blog to express my horror at how Americans cannot tolerate free speech by all Americans, which is what the US Supreme Court has ruled a money contribution constitutes. I fear that in time the intolerance of some will become the civil war of all. So I have sold my Midwestern home and plan soon to move into as isolated a spot on the planet as I can afford. Let the civil war commence, and leave me out of it all.



  • @hamilton.jerry:

    As some others have already observed, I, too, am now boycotting all Mozilla products. Further, I am using my 10,000 followers on my commercial blog to express my horror at how Americans cannot tolerate free speech by all Americans, which is what the US Supreme Court has ruled a money contribution constitutes. I fear that in time the intolerance of some will become the civil war of all. So I have sold my Midwestern home and plan soon to move into as isolated a spot on the planet as I can afford. Let the civil war commence, and leave me out of it all.

    I am not sure that this is the thing that will cause a civil war, but I do believe that if the US continues down the road toward totalitarianism we come closer and closer to that thing of which we may not speak.
    I personally am old enough to remember when most of our freedoms were still intact. I fear that succeeding generations won't be aware what has been lost.
    I look for the time when there is a backlash that will put things right and cause as little pain as possible.
    Thanks, for joining the group who are boycotting, and I am glad you have a following to bring on board.



  • @jimc:

    I personally am old enough to remember when most of our freedoms were still intact.

    Remember McCarthyism? There's always something ready to show a threat to 'freedom'. Freedom didn't and doesn't come for free, those that value freedoms have to constantly keep an open eye and do what little they can. Boycotting is one of the tools we have in all manner of things and effective if enough people care.
    Personally I don't see it as a resigning matter whether one agrees with him or not, so why did he resign? I've not seen it written the pressure was from Mozilla.



  • A CEO or another member of the board should not comment on (society-) political matters in public. This is an unwritten law.

    Everyone is allowed to have an opinion - but to publicly express them is not advised and may harm the company. This makes him prohibitive for the company.
    This "law" does not apply for every janitor or the canteen cook - but probably for a member of the board in public.



  • @Ice007:

    A CEO or another member of the board should not comment on (society-) political matters in public. This is an unwritten law.

    Everyone is allowed to have an opinion - but to publicly express them is not advised and may harm the company. This makes him prohibitive for the company.
    This "law" does not apply for every janitor or the canteen cook - but probably for a member of the board in public.

    I don't agree. I believe that individuals have their rights and those are protected. Who is guilty is the board for not doing a good enough background check to eliminate this person before hiring him. Kind of not a positive view of the competency of the board of directors.
    However, what I don't think is right is for a company to have a political point of view or contribute to political things. A companies job is to make a profit for it shareholders and that is it.
    Apple is guilty of this and they are on my boycott list.



  • @Rainspa:

    @jimc:

    I personally am old enough to remember when most of our freedoms were still intact.

    Remember McCarthyism? There's always something ready to show a threat to 'freedom'. Freedom didn't and doesn't come for free, those that value freedoms have to constantly keep an open eye and do what little they can. Boycotting is one of the tools we have in all manner of things and effective if enough people care.
    Personally I don't see it as a resigning matter whether one agrees with him or not, so why did he resign? I've not seen it written the pressure was from Mozilla.

    I don't remember McCarthy, I wasn't coherent outside myself at the time. However, I do question his methods but he seemed to correct as to who was anti-american.
    I have worked for larger and smaller software companies. Although, Mozilla hasn't admitted to forcing him out. It appears to be similar to what larger software companies do. They ask you to sign a severance package, most generally agree to a dollar amount and in exchange you agree to resign and not talk about anything that happened inside the company.
    Also, a member of the board talked about didn't fit the view the company has of itself.
    Those things taken into account it sure looks like a force out to me.



  • I don't understand what freedom of speech has to do with house rules.

    In my house (← literally) everyone can say what he wants - but(!) - I feel free to throw him out if it annoys me.

    I don't care if that person says the same anywhere else but not in my house.

    IMHO the same applies for companies. If Mozilla says: "We don't want people that make political statements about themes we don't want to discuss because it would bring unwanted attention to us." (which it did) it is OK for me if they act like that.



  • @QuHno:

    I don't understand what freedom of speech has to do with house rules.

    In my house (← literally) everyone can say what he wants - but(!) - I feel free to throw him out if it annoys me.

    I don't care if that person says the same anywhere else but not in my house.

    IMHO the same applies for companies. If Mozilla says: "We don't want people that make political statements about themes we don't want to discuss because it would bring unwanted attention to us." (which it did) it is OK for me if they act like that.

    This is true of companies, they have the right to fire anyone they want. Why don't they stop the song and dance and just fire the guy.
    I don't know if board members are truly employees of the company. So I don't know what is the law is.
    I think they are likely contract workers, in that case it would depend on what the contract says.



  • It's not at all funny:

    "The Outreach Program for Women (OPW) helps women (cis and trans) and genderqueer get involved in free and open source software."

    Political correctness Gnome:
    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTY2Mjc



  • @lemari:

    It's not at all funny:

    "The Outreach Program for Women (OPW) helps women (cis and trans) and genderqueer get involved in free and open source software."

    Political correctness Gnome:
    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTY2Mjc

    I don't understand most of what you said. What is it that is "not at all funny".
    Secondly, what does "cis", "trans" and "genderqueer" mean?
    And last, I thought Gnome wrote a desktop and programs for Linux. What difference does a persons gender orientation have to do with writing software. If you are good at it, your good at it. Nothing else needs to matter.



  • @jimc:

    what does "cis", "trans" and "genderqueer" mean?
    .

    Read:
    https://gnome.org/opw/#home
    And look at "Promoters"



  • I don't give a damn what the Supreme Court says. Money is NOT speech. Corporations are NOT people.

    If in the course of casual conversation, a CEO mentions that he believes that marriage should be defined as a relationship between a man and a woman, his view would diminish him in my eyes, but that is as far as it would go.

    When he donates money to the cause of trying to legislate his point of view, that is not speech. That is activism, attempting to legislate his pinheaded, exclusionary view so others must live in accordance with his beliefs.

    I resent that.



  • @masticatewithme:

    I don't give a damn what the Supreme Court says. Money is NOT speech. Corporations are NOT people.

    If in the course of casual conversation, a CEO mentions that he believes that marriage should be defined as a relationship between a man and a woman, his view would diminish him in my eyes, but that is as far as it would go.

    When he donates money to the cause of trying to legislate his point of view, that is not speech. That is activism, attempting to legislate his pinheaded, exclusionary view so others must live in accordance with his beliefs. I resent that.

    Marriage is a religious transaction, not a legal transaction. If the government had not decided that it needed to become I doubt that the problems we have today would be problems.
    If the government hadn't decided the married folks need a tax breaks, and all the rest of the breaks that accrue to married folks.
    Also describing a person who has a idea different to yours as a "pinhead" is really not a good part of the discussion. You have just called more then 50% of the population of the USA "pinheads".


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to Vivaldi Forum was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.