[joshstrange]

> (does not even matter if you still believe in what you said in the past or not... I did not saw anyone asking Eich)

Full stop. He had ample opportunity to speak out but he didn't. When someone says "I believe X" I assume that that person believes X until they either say "I don't believe X" or "I believe in Y" where Y is the opposite/different viewpoint on the same issue. Eich has made no such statement therefore I can only assume he is still anti-marriage equality, a homophobe, and not the right choice as the CEO of Mozilla.

Yes, you have free speech but just as codeoclock (and countless other HN'ers) said, you have to deal with the consequences. What you are proposing is a world where we can say whatever we want but never be held to what we say. I, for one, do not want to live in a world like that. I have said things in the past that I later changed my stance on and I have made every effort to make my change of view just as public as the original statement was. Sometimes this means talking to an individual or a small group and sometimes it means posting it to twitter.

I believe that if Eich had come out and said that his previous stance on marriage equality was wrong and he has since changed his view that this would not have ended the same way. Instead in both his blog posts [0][1] after this whole thing broke he drones on about how he will treat everyone fairly and how his personal beliefs will not affect his performance as CEO but he cleverly dances around the fact that he feels that homosexuals do not deserve the same rights as heterosexuals.

[0] https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/ [1] https://brendaneich.com/2014/04/the-next-mission/

[betterunix]

"he cleverly dances around the fact that he feels that homosexuals do not deserve the same rights as heterosexuals."

Yes, and obviously that is completely orthogonal to the kind of treatment he has received over his beliefs about gay marriage. It is easy to criticize people who are afraid to speak their minds when you have an army of thought police standing with you ready to punish anyone who dares to disagree.

[joshstrange]

I for one am extremely happy that we have an "army" of people ready to defend an oppressed group of people. Also this is not the "though police" he donated to a group working to destroy human rights for homosexuals. If we were talking about a CEO that was racist and had donated to the KKK would you still rush to call foul when they were forced to step down by popular opinion?

[betterunix]

Funny how the donation becomes the issue only after someone mentions thoughtcrime. Until then, the issue is what Eich believes.

"If we were talking about a CEO that was racist and had donated to the KKK would you still rush to call foul when they were forced to step down by popular opinion?"

Here are the guidelines I would use:

1. What does the organization they are CEO of do? If it is an organization devoted to providing aid to oppressed minorities, obviously KKK membership would be a conflict of interest. If on the other hand the organization makes general purpose software, I fail to see the relevance.

2. Is the CEO trying to use the organization to promote the KKK's agenda? If so, there is a problem with his professional conduct. If not, then his KKK membership is something he does on his own time; hateful, sure, but I do not want to live in a world where people are not allowed to separate their personal and professional lives.