[stcredzero]

I don't presume to know what King or Gandhi would have done. But I don't think speaking out against a public figure who stands against equal rights is wrong.

Sure, but going after someone for a political donation from 6 years ago after the issue has already been won seems vindictive and socially counterproductive. Can you point me to something that MLK, Mandela, or Gandhi did or said that would indicate they'd do something like that? I can point to many examples of words and actions of theirs that would suggest they'd advocate for a more magnanimous path.

[nate_meurer]

Neither the timeline of Eich's donation nor the outcome of the prop 8 fight is relevant. Eich has given no indication that he feels differently now than he did then. In other words, he has done nothing to assuage the suspicion that his personal convictions are in radical opposition to some of the most important cultural aims of the Mozilla organization.

I'm sad for Mozilla because Eich is a great and rare talent.

[stcredzero]

Neither the timeline of Eich's donation nor the outcome of the prop 8 fight is relevant.

Such an absolute position would be reasonable if the action in question had some sort of permanent or destructive effect. It's entirely unreasonable to treat a political donation or a privately held political belief as if it were a crime with a permanent or perniciously destructive effect.

In other words, he has done nothing to assuage the suspicion that his personal convictions are in radical opposition to some of the most important cultural aims of the Mozilla organization.

I can understand this position as well. However, it seems dangerous for us to have a society where we have to be constantly be "saying the right things" or punitive actions are to be taken against us. This does not sound like a free society. Granted, as CEO of Mozilla, he is not in the same position as a typical private citizen, but the principles should still apply. "In radical opposition to some of the most important cultural aims" could just as well be rewritten as "Having political views we don't like."

[devindotcom]

Such an absolute position would be reasonable if the action in question had some sort of permanent or destructive effect. It's entirely unreasonable to treat a political donation or a privately held political belief as if it were a crime with a permanent of perniciously destructive effect.

Prop 8 was a constitutional amendment that removed civil rights from a historically oppressed group. That it has been since overturned is largely to the credit of the activists who opposed it before, during, and after it passed.

I can understand this position as well. However, it seems dangerous for us to have a society where we have to be constantly be "saying the right things" or punitive actions are to be taken against us. This does not sound like a free society. Granted, as CEO of Mozilla, he is not in the same position as a typical private citizen, but the principles should still apply. "In radical opposition to some of the most important cultural aims" could just as well be rewritten as "Having political views we don't like."

There is pressure to not have beliefs and practice that are harmful to others. You are free to believe and say whatever you like, but if what you believe and say is "black and white people should not intermarry" or "muslims should be rounded up into internment camps" you are going to face heavy consequences. If you feel you must walk on eggshells because of your views on gay marriage, you may be out of sync with social norms, just as segregationists were in the 60s and proponents of criminalization of homosexuality are today.

"Political views we don't like" - political "views" in the form of many dollars that were intended to and successfully deprived a group of a civil right, and "we" in the form of a vocal, nonviolent nonmajority speaking out online. If you think that doesn't sound like a free society, I think you may not very familiar with what actual non-free societies look like.

[stcredzero]

a vocal, nonviolent nonmajority speaking out online. If you think that doesn't sound like a free society, I think you may not very familiar with what actual non-free societies look like.

Everything is contextual, and you are right, that in a broader context, all of the people discussed, Brendan Eich included, have it pretty good in the global scheme of things.

However, non-free societies look like this:

You are expected to hew to certain viewpoints. It is not enough for you to just be quiet, you have to actively and enthusiastically say and write words supporting the "right" opinion. If you have ever expressed the "wrong" opinion in the past, then this is enough to bring punitive action against you, regardless of the current circumstances, though you might win redemption if you make a loud and public declaration of contrition. Only the expression of a "wrong" opinion is enough for punishment -- no concrete act is required, only the apparent possibility of it. The historical fact of your actual behavior is irrelevant to the above.

As an exercise, the reader can come up with their own examples for groups and governments that enacted behaviors and policies like the above. By doing so, even in a smaller context, one actively promotes social dynamics that inhibit open and free dissent and exchange of ideas. (Also note, that the previous paragraph applies just as well to how men were expected to express their status as heterosexual.)

Political power is always contextual, as is the human social behavior on which it is based. If you are in a context where you have power, and someone is telling you something you don't like to hear, well guess what: Someone is speaking truth to power, and it isn't you. (At least, in their own POV. It's this whole problem of POV and the unreasonable position of adjudicator of correct speech that underlies the notion of free speech.)

[dllthomas]

If that's what "non-free societies look like", then what we're dealing with is not a "non-free society" (at least, in this dimension):

'You are expected to hew to certain viewpoints. It is not enough for you to just be quiet, you have to actively and enthusiastically say and write words supporting the "right" opinion.'

Show me an example of someone being ousted for remaining quiet.

'Only the expression of a "wrong" opinion is enough for punishment -- no concrete act is required, only the apparent possibility of it.'

A group of people prevented couples that wanted to be married from being married. That is clearly an act. Donation of $1000 toward those ends is not simply holding an opinion.

"The historical fact of your actual behavior is irrelevant to the above."

Again, there was "actual behavior", as a matter of "historical fact".

On the following point the world does look something like you describe (probably too much so):

'If you have ever expressed the "wrong" opinion in the past, then this is enough to bring punitive action against you, regardless of the current circumstances.'

But similarity on one point out of 4 is hardly a strong case.

[stcredzero]

Show me an example of someone being ousted for remaining quiet.

In this situation, Brendan Eich would probably have been better served by saying less, though that would probably not have changed the outcome. Is your position that weak that you are really reduced to this degree of nitpicking?

A group of people prevented couples that wanted to be married from being married. That is clearly an act.

In the same manner that speaking is an 'act.' Imagine a world where the worst villains would donate $1000 to a PAC supporting their view, then quietly accept the outcome and get on with their work. That world would be a utopia compared to this one.

Again, there was "actual behavior", as a matter of "historical fact".

This entire line of argument only makes sense if you believe that there is a clear "right" and "wrong" and that you are in a perfect position to judge which is which. In a free society, there is no one in such a position, and those who value a free society would be unwise to advocate the punishment of such expression, even if it's technically legal and resembles "civil actions" of the past.

Seriously, watch some documentaries about repressive regimes. Talk to people who understand these principles and have lived in such places. There is a compelling reason why free societies should tolerate unpopular opinions, and why such tolerance should go above the minimum required by the law.

But similarity on one point out of 4 is hardly a strong case.

I think your nitpicking speaks for itself for those who are mindful of principles and will appear as some kind of stirring justification to those who are of the mind "but we're right and they're wrong."