[wonderzombie]

they are entitled not to lose their jobs or be beaten etc over them

These things are not at all the same. And in this case, we're talking about a CEO, the public face of a company, not an otherwise private citizen.

For, those that believe otherwise, I'd say that their opinoon means that people who talked against slavery in 1840 and were fired, ostracized from their community or beaten up were also living in a "free speach" environment.

Should I put words in your mouth, about how we'd still be living with Jim Crow if you had your way? "Let's not offend anyone who's racist, lest they feel like their rights to bigotry are being undermined!" What I just wrote and what you wrote above are not productive.

It's also pretty rich to compare abolitionists -- people campaigning for an expansion of human rights -- to someone who did the exact opposite.

Anyway, you're essentially arguing that free speech means freedom from consequences, and it just doesn't. Free speech is not absolute, as has been demonstrated time and again.

You can't insult your boss to their face and expect to get away with it b/c free speech. Likewise you can't try to deny an entire class of people their rights and expect zero consequences b/c free speech. It's never worked that way.

[mpyne]

> And in this case, we're talking about a CEO, the public face of a company, not an otherwise private citizen.

This is true, and similar to what got people like Adria Richards fired in other scenarios where they've lost the ability to be able to professionally represent their company through their speech alone.

> Anyway, you're essentially arguing that free speech means freedom from consequences, and it just doesn't.

Yes, but keep in mind that there's a difference between individual freedom of speech among individuals and what society does to individuals. IMO people should modulate the consequences they are free to impose based on the principle that free speech is valued.

There's a reason Rockwell's famous painting exhibiting freedom of speech is a man standing in a crowded town hall meeting. Whatever that man says, he will have to still live with those people afterwards, and so everyone involved will have to understand their part in what "freedom of speech" really means in America.

Of course the government can't ban people from ostracizing someone based on their speech. The point is that in a free society (as opposed to a free governance), the people at large shouldn't need to be told by the government not to ostracize someone who speaks their mind.

Your boss imposing consequences for your stupid tongue is one thing. But should it be right for your boss to froth up a mob to go after you, as long as they don't break the law?

[wonderzombie]

Thank you for your thoughtful comment.

I agree that the consequences should be modulated. I've said elsewhere that death threats are unacceptable, but this is an unsolved problem in society at large. It's not unique to Eich's situation.

Other than that, the consequences are rather mild for someone with as deep a resume as Eich's. I'm sure we'll hear about it if he's been blackballed from the entire industry, or someone sabotages a new company of his, or what have you. I suppose it could happen but I think it unlikely.

Likewise, aside from behavior that I'm sure we both agree ought never happen, it's hard for me to find fault with people exercising their own right to criticism & browser choice. It's certainly not the moral equivalent of a mob threatening his physical well-being, and a (forced) resignation isn't morally equivalent to being thrust into the wilderness with nothing but the clothes in your back.

You're saying we should ostensibly set the standard higher the bare minimum of legality, and that's fair. I just don't see this situation as being a dangerous precedent in this context. If you not in so many words argue that a bunch of your citizens are subhuman, a backlash is inevitable, particularly when it's based on so flimsy a premise. The case for responsible speech goes both ways.

The "insult your boss" example was just a trivial example of how freedom of speech still entails a responsibility for the consequences-- it is not an absolute and inviolate for a variety of good reasons, though a great many commenters here wish it were.

[mpyne]

> I just don't see this situation as being a dangerous precedent in this context.

The OKCupid action by itself is a dangerous precedent though. People calling for Eich's head is one thing, that would have happened even if he were pure as the driven snow. But a company taking action against the users of a different company? Because that company chose the wrong CEO?

If that doesn't flip the WTF-o-meter I can't figure out what would?

[coldtea]

>These things are not at all the same. And in this case, we're talking about a CEO, the public face of a company, not an otherwise private citizen.

A job is a job. The "a CEO is a public face" is a shallow excuse. The same excuse (essentially not being suitable to be a public face for the company/employeer) has been used to fire people from teachers to waiters (far from CEO positions).

>Should I put words in your mouth, about how we'd still be living with Jim Crow if you had your way? "Let's not offend anyone who's racist, lest they feel like their rights to bigotry are being undermined!"

I don't understand the argument here. I never wrote anything about voting against laws like the Jim Crow ones. Just that bigots have a right to their opinions too. And in fact, when the Jim Crow laws were discarded, those bigots still held their opinions.

(Well, it's actually even more complicated than that. For example Jim Crow laws had little to do with pure bigotry and a lot to do with monetary exploitation of the blacks. More than bigots, their advocates were ruthless disgusting businessmen.).

>It's also pretty rich to compare abolitionists -- people campaigning for an expansion of human rights -- to someone who did the exact opposite.

How about Eich's human right to his job? Or his human right to vote for whatever he likes? Or is it like someone who is against a human right (as considered by some) is OK to lose other rights of his?

>Anyway, you're essentially arguing that free speech means freedom from consequences, and it just doesn't.

It should, or it has no meaning.

If free speech means solely the ability to say something publicly (and then suffer possible consequences), then that was available in every era and to everybody.

If so, losing your head for talking against the church in 1600 was also a "free speech" environment. Getting fired during McCarthyism was also compatible with "free speech".

>Free speech is not absolute, as has been demonstrated time and again.

I'm not saying what free speech has been historically, so what has been "demonstrated time and again" doesn't say a lot in this argument. History has a bad track record with regards to free speech.

I'm saying what free speech should be, and how its champions like Voltaire envisioned it.

>Likewise you can't try to deny an entire class of people their rights and expect zero consequences b/c free speech.

Well, it seems that generations over generations of Californians could not only try, but actively deny that class of people their rights and have zero consequences. In fact when Eich supported his position, it was also the LAW that denied then. And the majority of the population (IIRC) agreed with that. It was put to vote -- that itself means that not only you could "try to deny", but that your right to do so, voting no on the matter, was sanctioned by the state.

[wonderzombie]

In fact, "public" is essential to the role of a CEO. It's hard for me to understand how you don't see the difference, regardless of how some people have tried to appropriate it.

As it stands now, having a job is not a human right. I think maybe it should be! But it's not. There's not even a right to a living wage in the US. There's certainly no right to be a CEO of Mozilla enshrined anywhere, and I believe CA is an at-will employer. So.

Maybe if he's blackballed from the entire industry, I'll characterize that as oppressive. But this is one job at one company. He's lost one (1) job. It may be unjust but life is hard when you have views the public finds objectionable. I can't imagine a system under which this would not be so.

Anyway, I'm not sure what alternative you envision here. Should people have just sucked it up? Expressed criticism more politely? Your premise precludes you from policing others' speech. I'm just not sure how you square others' freedom when it comes to disagreeing with the company's decision to hire an avowed bigot.