[syshum]

It would not be against Mozilla "free speech" rights, it would be against their free association rights.

I want to hold Mozilla up to their public advertisements, and commitments they made to the public at large, these are a contract if you will to the public. Both because of their Tax Exempt status, and a truth in advertising issue.

If mozilla wants to exercise their right to free association as censorship platform, then they need to give up their Tax Exempt status, as well as cease all public advertisement around "Our mission: Keep the internet open and accessible to all.", Clearly this is only true to people that share the ideological worldview as Mozilla. AS such this is a false statement.

[krapp]

There is no such thing as a "contract if you will to the public" nor do any "commitments" that Mozilla has made to the "public at large" (whatever those are supposed to be) constitute a contract in any legally binding sense.

>If mozilla wants to exercise their right to free association as censorship platform, then they need to give up their Tax Exempt status, as well as cease all public advertisement around "Our mission: Keep the internet open and accessible to all."

Firefox extensions are not the internet.

[gspetr]

You're being unnecessarily literal, it's clear that the parent misspoke and meant social contract[0], not a direct, legal one.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract

[krapp]

Losing tax exempt status and being barred from mentioning a mission statement sound like legal, not social consequences. My impression was that the parent believed Mozilla was breaking some actual law regarding truth in advertising or something by claiming their mission was to "keep the internet open and accessible to all" while also curating plugins.