[darklajid]

I repeatedly fail to understand this 'Freedom of Speech' notion - and certainly do here. Mozilla is a company. They certainly can pick roles based on the statements of an individual. If you apply for a job there and can't stop cursing like a madman, or if you happen to add juicy details about your personal homophobic beliefs to the interview, you might not get the job. Free speech? Doesn't matter.

Now, I do admit that I didn't like the whole 'we dug up this stuff in his past' part of the story. Nor the pitchfork wielding crowds on the net. I, personally, would've considered him misguided and stuck in the past in this regard, but I wasn't calling for (or expecting) consequences. Mozilla decided (or was pressured) to distance itself from the person and his statements. That might be correct or might be unfair, depending on your stance.

But it's not about free speech.

[takeda]

I guess I was not clear, the first amendment is not for individual companies. If a company tells me that I cannot talk about for internal technology that is used (NDA) then I better won't because no first amendment will protect me.

What I mean is that by telling me that my vote or contribution toward specific cause is not aligned with company's goals essentially forces me to vote in a specific way which does affect my freedom of speech.

If Mozilla would be an LGBT organization and I joined and was told that my contribution don't agree with company's values. Then I'm totally at fault and should look for job somewhere else if this matter to me, but company like Mozilla has no obvious political affiliations and in fact they should not have any.

[drumdance]

Could Focus on the Family fire a CEO if they found out he's an atheist?

[KingMob]

Mozilla didn't tell him to do anything. It just responded to what he did.

People have freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences.

[scintill76]

> People have freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences.

This definition of a "right" is so loose as to be basically meaningless. Accordingly, I have the freedom to murder anyone, just not the freedom from its consequences. People in North Korea are free to speak whatever they want, but aren't free to remain living if the government doesn't like what they said.

If you make the other cliched argument that the first amendment only applies to government suppression of speech, that's true, but the US Constitution doesn't have a monopoly on what "freedom of expression" means. It's only a legal lower bound, and in one country.

[jasonlotito]

> What I mean is that by telling me that my vote or contribution toward specific cause is not aligned with company's goals essentially forces me to vote in a specific way which does affect my freedom of speech.

They don't say that though. The problem wasn't that he did something, the problem is that what he did prevented him from performing his role as CEO. And CEO is not just another employee. They are the public face of the company. They are the leader. And I don't think you'll find anyone that would argue that when he was made CEO, there was a backlash which caused problems both internally and externally for his role as CEO.

And that's why the board and he decided he would not be able to fill the role of CEO and he stepped down. Not because of his political affiliations, but because he couldn't fulfill the role they needed him to fulfill.

[aaaaabbbbbbc]

If the civil rights movement has taught us anything, we know that there is a difference between legal right and moral right.

This action of Mozilla's doesn't peal back the first amendment. But it does chill the free exchange of ideas. That's what the first amendment was for. Shouldn't we be concerned when someone finds a way around the safeguards we put in place to protect free society?

[Karunamon]

The "free exchange of ideas" like "I gave money to people that think you're subhuman?" (Hardly an exaggeration either. The ads from the group Eich directly supported are still available on youtube, and are downright disgusting.)

Let's not mince words here. This was never about "speech", this was about action, and his complete unwillingness to own up to that action. For a CEO, that's a pretty big failure of leadership.

[bzbarsky]

> They certainly can pick roles based on the statements of an individual.

Technically, in California, they can't if the statements are part of the political process. Or at least they will get a pretty nominal fine if they do. See http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=lab&gr...

Your two examples, of course, are not political activity per se, so wouldn't fall under these regulations.