[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."

[dllthomas]

"[Preventing people from being married is an act i]n the same manner that speaking is an 'act.'"

I'm done here. You clearly have no connection to reality, and this is distracting from more important matters.

[stcredzero]

I'm done here. You clearly have no connection to reality, and this is distracting from more important matters.

If you are so assured of the rightness of your position and the wrongness of the other's position, that you are entitled to take actions of any degree of severity, then you have lost connection to reality, as have so many others in history. You would be well advised to never be that self righteous.

I have been racially harassed, subject to hate speech, in a situation where the police got involved. There's simply no equating Brendan Eich and his political donation with a situation and actions like that. If you can't deal with others thinking the actions taken against him are out of proportion and have the feeling of a witch-hunt because your position is so evidently right and his is so evidently wrong then you are again the one who has lost connection to reality, as well as having lost track of the meaning of a pluralistic society. A just, pluralistic society will treat even its dissenting members with justice and tolerance.

If past political donations are an acceptable justification for "open season" on others, six years after the fact, we have no hope as an open democratic society.

[dllthomas]

The sum total of anyone's action here is 1) speech, and 2) deciding not to do business with someone. I'm not saying it's necessarily the correct decision, but painting it as an assumption that we are "entitled to take actions of any degree of severity" just reinforces my point. Anyway, I'm literally not going to respond to a thing below this comment, however crazy or sensible it gets.

[stcredzero]

Legality and the extreme wrongness of someone's position entitles you to do anything, up to and including persecution of someone for a political donation from 6 years ago. Because that donation was so wrong. Thanks for the clarification. Doesn't sound needlessly vindictive at all.

A pluralistic, tolerant society tolerates the holding of private beliefs of all kinds and forgives being on the wrong side of history. A society that doesn't do this simply isn't one that respects the right of free speech. The actions concerning Mozilla do nothing to further civil rights and moves our society towards norms of intolerance of dissent.

EDIT: I think I learned something here today. There are those who think that there is no social justice for sexual orientation until the same degree of vilification is applied to their former political opponents as that which happened to the political opponents of racial civil rights. I'm sorry, but this is illogical, shortsighted, and vindictive. It doesn't matter how wrong people were and how much those who held wrong positions suffer, and any energy which is brought to bear in that sort of direction is not helping the cause of justice. This is merely misplaced vengeance. It is indeed not what MLK, Mandela, or Gandhi would have wanted. Just because this is how it happened in the past doesn't make it wise or right. I happen to believe that an enlightened society can exist without "sufficient punishment of wrong thinking."