whats the deal with this boycott firefox over the CEO gay rights stance

RDM said:
They do, that is also protected under free speech. Calling for a boycott is one of the most effective uses of free speech in a capitalist nation.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, calling for a boycott against a company that perhaps breaks the law, opposes freedom of speech, diversity or whatever is in vogue at the time, is a fundamental right...however:

A boycott of who though, a company renowned for its adherence to freedoms and equality? They used a boycott of an innocent company to intimidate and hound an individual for supporting the notion that marriage is between a man and a woman. Did Mozilla express or support this idea? No. Did Eich use his position in order to advance and promote this idea? No. In fact quite the opposite, Eich made it very clear that he has never expressed his private political beliefs in the workplace as he feels that is not the correct place for them, as is his right. He also was very clar that his appointment would not alter the ethos of Mozilla as a copmpany (and why would it, he is a founder of the company and its ethos) he stated

"I am committed to ensuring that Mozilla is, and will remain, a place that includes and supports everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, age, race, ethnicity, economic status, or religion,"
Click to expand...

Of course people are free to choose for themselves whether the use of Firefox (or any JavaScript) is akin to supporting anti-gay marriage propositions etc and not use it...what they are not entitled to do, or at least in a free, tolerant society, is intimate and hound someone (even through an innocent proxy) until they are forced into such a position simply because they disagree with you.

Ironically, now other advocates of free speech and other customers of Mozilla are expressing outrage for Eich's forced resignation are calling for a boycott of Mozilla because of it...as I said, they were between a rock and a hard place, somewhere they should never have been as Eich's donation should not have been a focus for gay activists in the first place.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/mozil...eo-departure-leads-to-boycott/article/2546891

They did criticise, they also called for a boycott, it was the adverse publicity from this call for a boycott that led to the resignation of the CEO. Why is them using their rights to free speech wrong but him using his OK?
Click to expand...

There is a marked difference in the two...Eich simply supported a ballot in the state legislature, others were free to oppose it, and they did. Eich did not seek to intimidate his opponents or limit their rights to oppose him by public boycotts of companies they were employees of, he did not seek to limit their freedom by inTimidation, death threats and vandalism...if he had there would rightly be outrage and accusations of intolerance and bigotry..why is it ok then for him and others simply for holding the view that marriage is between a man and woman, to be subjected to such, when historically when this has happened to rights campaigners it has been deemed wrong?

In fact Californian State employment law categorically outlaws the sacking or intimidation of an employed because they hold or express a political view. So why do you think it is right that he should be intimidated and forced out of his job?

His support for Proposition 8 wasn't "outed" by gay activists, it was a matter of public record.
Click to expand...

Actually it was, the public record was taken and used by Gay Activists to name and intimidate those people on it. Eich was just one of them, others have subjected to death threats and violence, businesses have been vandalised and boycotted...all in the name of tolerance? Ironic don't you think.

Andrew Sullivan (a staunch supporter of gay marriage) wrote in a blog recently...

The whole episode disgusts me – as it should disgust anyone interested in a tolerant and diverse society. If this is the gay rights movement today – hounding our opponents with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone else – then count me out. If we are about intimidating the free speech of others, we are no better than the anti-gay bullies who came before us.
Click to expand...

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/04/03/the-hounding-of-brendan-eich/

I agree with him, I think anyone who truly wants a free, tolerant and diverse society should be disgusted at what has happened here...this isn't advancing equality and tolerance, it is simply replacing one form of intolerance with another.
 
Last edited:
seems like a pretty big assumption to me. we don't know why he "stepped" down. from some of the things you've said it just feels a little ironic that you go assume this, and it's my suspiction that you blindly assume this and speak of it as fact because it backs up what you say.
 
Fairly sure the answer is no said:
seems like a pretty big assumption to me. we don't know why he "stepped" down. from some of the things you've said it just feels a little ironic that you go assume this, and it's my suspiction that you blindly assume this and speak of it as fact because it backs up what you say.
Click to expand...

We do know why he stepped down, the entire thread is discussing that very reason...it's not an assumption, its what happened.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-26868536
 
Castiel said:
I agree with you, calling for a boycott against a company that perhaps breaks the law, opposes freedom of speech, diversity or whatever is in vogue at the time, is a fundamental right...however:

A boycott of who though, a company renowned for its adherence to freedoms and equality? They used a boycott of an innocent company to intimidate and hound an individual for supporting the notion that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Click to expand...

So as long as Nick Griffin didn't express his views as a "representative of the company" it would be OK for a company to hire him as a CEO and face no backlash? A more extreme example obviously but the same basic principle.

Castiel said:
There is a marked difference in the two...Eich simply supported a ballot in the state legislature, others were free to oppose it, and they did. Eich did not seek to intimidate his opponents or limit their rights to oppose him by public boycotts of companies they were employees of, he did not seek to limit their freedom by inTimidation, death threats and vandalism...if he had there would rightly be outrage and accusations of intolerance and bigotry..why is it ok then for him and others simply for holding the view that marriage is between a man and woman, to be subjected to such, when historically when this has happened to rights campaigners it has been deemed wrong?
Click to expand...

He did more than hold views though, he directly supported through financial donations a law that restricted rights and limited freedoms. Compared to that a call to boycott a company is pretty light.

Castiel said:
In fact Californian State employment law categorically outlaws the sacking or intimidation of an employed because they hold or express a political view. So why do you think it is right that he should be intimidated and forced out of his job?
Click to expand...

Because the alternative is to restrict the rights of others to use their free speech rights to call for a boycott if a company does something they disagree with, such as appointing someone they think is a bigot as CEO?

Castiel said:
Actually it was, the public record was taken and used by Gay Activists to name and intimidate those people on it. Eich was just one of them, others have subjected to death threats and violence, businesses have been vandalised and boycotted...all in the name of tolerance? Ironic don't you think.
Click to expand...

Anybody vandalising property or making death threats should face the full force of the law, anyone calling for a boycott shouldn't.

Castiel said:
I agree with him, I think anyone who truly wants a free, tolerant and diverse society should be disgusted at what has happened here...this isn't advancing equality and tolerance, it is simply replacing one form of intolerance with another.
Click to expand...

Not entirely sure we should be tolerant of bigotry tbh.
 
RDM said:
So as long as Nick Griffin didn't express his views as a "representative of the company" it would be OK for a company to hire him as a CEO and face no backlash? A more extreme example obviously but the same basic principle.
Click to expand...

Eich did not express nor condone the views that Nick Griffiths does. Supporting the idea that marriage is between a man and woman is not the same as supporting and condoning racism and white supremacy.


RDM said:
He did more than hold views though, he directly supported through financial donations a law that restricted rights and limited freedoms. Compared to that a call to boycott a company is pretty light.
Click to expand...

He donated to support a ballot on whether the legal definition of marriage should remain defined as being between a man and woman. That is all he did. Agree with him or disagree with him, oppose him in the correct arena...but seek to punish him for that support?..that is wrong and is no different from punishing someone for holding the opposite view.

RDM said:
Because the alternative is to restrict the rights of others to use their free speech rights to call for a boycott if a company does something they disagree with, such as appointing someone they think is a bigot as CEO?
Click to expand...

So it is right to restrict ones rights of freedom in order to promote another's rights? That is the exact problem I am saying exists here. The fact is that Mozilla is innocent, completely so and therefore a boycott is hardly promoting equality or freedom of speech, it is doing exactly what you are saying is wrong with Eich donating to proposition 8.

RDM said:
Anybody vandalising property or making death threats should face the full force of the law, anyone calling for a boycott shouldn't.
Click to expand...

And no one is suggesting that anyone is punished for boycotting Mozilla, equally I don't think Eich should be punished for supporting the definition of marriage as he does.



RDM said:
Not entirely sure we should be tolerant of bigotry tbh.
Click to expand...


I'm not entirely sure that we should be opposing intolerance with intolerance, particularly as the definition of marriage is not a settled argument at the moment, at least in the United States. For me the correct way to oppose such propositions is by making a case before the courts, as people did and won. For me that should be enough, it is not acceptable to me in a tolerant society that those that opposed us and lost should face further punishment simply because they believe something different. That simply makes us as bad as those who promoted intolerances and bigotry in the first place.

You don't fight bigotry with bigotry.
 
Thompson_NCL said:
Then we're all as guilty as hell as we give tacit support to removal of rights from prisoners.
Click to expand...

Emprisoning people is a (usually) temporary restrictions on their rights in order to protect the rights and safety of others. Can you explain how this is analagous to removing/restricting people's rights on the basis of skin colour or sexuality?
 
Zethor said:
It's exactly the same - the idea that a group of people should have more rights than another group.
Click to expand...

Different rights not necessarily more rights. Such as civil partnership v religious marriage v state marriage.

I believe that we should all be entitled to all three, but some believe differently and that is their right, it is up to society to decide through application to and of the law...not by forcing others to believe as you do by intimidation and threats of reprisal.
 
AGD said:
Emprisoning people is a (usually) temporary restrictions on their rights in order to protect the rights and safety of others. Can you explain how this is analagous to removing/restricting people's rights on the basis of skin colour or sexuality?
Click to expand...

Your suggestion that imprisonment is purely about protecting the rights and safety of others is incorrect. It is also about punishing people.

It's analogous in the sense that we are removing people's rights based upon an arbitrary criteria of societies choosing.

cheesyboy said:
They have the same rights as everyone else; anyone commits a crime, they get treated equally under the law regardless of colour, sexual orientation etc.
Click to expand...

I'm stunned to see you make that point to be honest, as it's entirely counter-productive to your argument. But since you seem to accept the logic that underpins it: Until recently, homosexuals had the same rights as everyone else; they could marry the opposite sex. So there was no need to change anything.
 
Castiel said:
but some believe differently and that is their right
Click to expand...

If you put it this way, it is my right, in example, to believe women can vote but their votes should only count as half a vote. It is my right to believe blacks can marry other blacks but if they want to marry whites it should be called a "civil union". Are you suggesting it's not right to get scorn, pressure, boycotts etc. if I support these views publicly while leading a major corporation?
 
Thompson_NCL said:
It's analogous in the sense that we are removing people's rights based upon an arbitrary criteria of societies choosing.
Click to expand...
It's based on harm to others or society. There are some laws which fail this test (drug laws, for example) but, generally they are anything but arbitrary.


Thompson_NCL said:
I'm stunned to see you make that point to be honest, as it's entirely counter-productive to your argument. But since you seem to accept the logic that underpins it: Until recently, homosexuals had the same rights as everyone else; they could marry the opposite sex. So there was no need to change anything.
Click to expand...
Incorrect framing

Homosexual couples can't (or couldn't) marry, hetero couples can.
 
Zethor said:
If you put it this way, it is my right, in example, to believe women can vote but their votes should only count as half a vote. It is my right to believe blacks can marry other blacks but if they want to marry whites it should be called a "civil union". Are you suggesting it's not right to get scorn, pressure, boycotts etc. if I support these views publicly while leading a major corporation?
Click to expand...

So would you be okay with people successfully putting pressure on businesses to sack of a person supportive of gay rights? This is a sword that cuts both ways. How long is it before you get sacked for voting for the Liberal Democrats, Greens or Labour because some vocal pressure groups oppose them?
 
Thompson_NCL said:
So would you be okay with people successfully putting pressure on businesses to sack of a person supportive of gay rights? This is a sword that cuts both ways. How long is it before you get sacked for voting for the Liberal Democrats, Greens or Labour because some vocal pressure groups oppose them?
Click to expand...

You're under the impression that this is a political issue that has two valid "sides of the story" - it's not. It's a human rights issue that had to go through a long political process due to the backwards elements of society.

Blacks being chained 300 years ago was wrong then, when few spoke against it, as it is now when it's unacceptable under any circumstances. Discrimination against gays was wrong 60 years ago, when Turing was prosecuted, as it is now when it's illegal for them to marry in most countries.
 
Last edited:
Zethor said:
You're under the impression that this is a political issue that has two valid "sides of the story" - it's not. It's a human rights issue that had to go through a long political process due to the backwards elements of society.

Blacks being chained 300 years ago was wrong then, when few spoke against it, as it is now when it's unacceptable under any circumstances. Discrimination against gays was wrong 60 years ago, when Turing was prosecuted, as it is now when it's illegal for them to marry in most countries.
Click to expand...

Human Rights are illusory, Zethor. There is no scientific evidence for their existence outside of the minds of those who believe in them.
 
Castiel said:
I agree here, his resignation had nothing to do with his or Mozilla's thoughts on his donation...but simply as a reaction to the harassment campaign against him and by association his company.

Is that right?

I don't feel it is.
Click to expand...

I guess you missed the part where Mozilla employees opposed him, it's not just some supposed LGBTUVWXYZ campaign against him.

No one is saying he doesn't have the right to his opinions, but at the end of the day he has to live with the consequences.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom