[spiffyman]

I think you're using the wrong standard here.

From Wikipedia:

> Hate speech - outside the law, is speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation.

"Marginalized political views" isn't in that list, but then again it doesn't purport to be a comprehensive list.

However, it seems like you're relying on a particularly legalistic view of what "hate speech" is. Is hateful speech toward a group truly not "hate speech" until a legislative act deems the group protected? On face, that doesn't seem right.

You're right about "hate speech" as a legal term, but I don't think the CEO of a non-profit speaking to his employees requires that level of scrutiny.

[deciplex]

> You're right about "hate speech" as a legal term, but I don't think the CEO of a non-profit speaking to his employees requires that level of scrutiny.

When you're talking about firing someone over a thing, it's a good idea to be precise IMO. FWIW I'd be totally fine if he had said that he intends to fire that employee for claiming represent Mozilla the organization (or at least its employees) in a public forum. But calling it "hate speech" dilutes the term.

To my mind "Hate speech" != "hateful speech" - no?

[A_COMPUTER]

It's vague, it's expansive, its informal usage is frequently conflated with its legal usage. And all this is a feature of the term, not a bug.

[deciplex]

A feature for who? I prefer precise language and being understood.

[13thLetter]

It's not very good for being precise or understood, but it is quite good at being a weapon. The vaguer the definition of a crime, the easier it is to accuse your political opponents of it while minimizing equivalent or worse behavior by your allies.