They didn't "fire" Brendan Eich, they just acknowledged that his personal values were at odd with Mozilla's mission and overall sentiment across the organization, basically demoting him from the CEO role. Eich then resigned.
It's not as he was CEO of LGBT organization or he was running for a public office. Mozilla is not a political organization, his opinions in this matter should make no difference whatsoever.
This move was basically infringing on rights to have his personal beliefs.
How would it looks like if it was the reverse? Someone pro LGBT made a contribution against prop 8 and then was told 6 years later that his personal values did not match the company's even though the company has nothing to do with LGBT and his opinion has no impact.
This move was is simply discrimination. It should matter whether he is republican or democrat, christian/muslim/atheist or fire worshiper, whether he's pro guns or against. Mozilla is a technology company, neither of that should matter in what they do.
As someone who cares about politics, I would be furious if my employer told me that my personal beliefs are wrong. That infringes on my rights as a citizen and voter.
Now, I do admit that I didn't like the whole 'we dug up this stuff in his past' part of the story. Nor the pitchfork wielding crowds on the net. I, personally, would've considered him misguided and stuck in the past in this regard, but I wasn't calling for (or expecting) consequences. Mozilla decided (or was pressured) to distance itself from the person and his statements. That might be correct or might be unfair, depending on your stance.
But it's not about free speech.
What I mean is that by telling me that my vote or contribution toward specific cause is not aligned with company's goals essentially forces me to vote in a specific way which does affect my freedom of speech.
If Mozilla would be an LGBT organization and I joined and was told that my contribution don't agree with company's values. Then I'm totally at fault and should look for job somewhere else if this matter to me, but company like Mozilla has no obvious political affiliations and in fact they should not have any.
They don't say that though. The problem wasn't that he did something, the problem is that what he did prevented him from performing his role as CEO. And CEO is not just another employee. They are the public face of the company. They are the leader. And I don't think you'll find anyone that would argue that when he was made CEO, there was a backlash which caused problems both internally and externally for his role as CEO.
And that's why the board and he decided he would not be able to fill the role of CEO and he stepped down. Not because of his political affiliations, but because he couldn't fulfill the role they needed him to fulfill.
People have freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences.
This definition of a "right" is so loose as to be basically meaningless. Accordingly, I have the freedom to murder anyone, just not the freedom from its consequences. People in North Korea are free to speak whatever they want, but aren't free to remain living if the government doesn't like what they said.
If you make the other cliched argument that the first amendment only applies to government suppression of speech, that's true, but the US Constitution doesn't have a monopoly on what "freedom of expression" means. It's only a legal lower bound, and in one country.
This action of Mozilla's doesn't peal back the first amendment. But it does chill the free exchange of ideas. That's what the first amendment was for. Shouldn't we be concerned when someone finds a way around the safeguards we put in place to protect free society?
Let's not mince words here. This was never about "speech", this was about action, and his complete unwillingness to own up to that action. For a CEO, that's a pretty big failure of leadership.
Technically, in California, they can't if the statements are part of the political process. Or at least they will get a pretty nominal fine if they do. See http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=lab&gr...
Your two examples, of course, are not political activity per se, so wouldn't fall under these regulations.
Everyone has a right to believe whatever they want. Nobody has a right to be CEO of Mozilla.
Mozilla does, however, have the right to choose their CEO.
There are in California, actually. See California labor code sections 1101-1102 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=lab&gr... , which say:
1101: No employer shall make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy (a) Forbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics or from becoming candidates for public office. b) Controlling or directing, or tending to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of employees.
1102: No employer shall coerce or influence or attempt to coerce or influence his employees through or by means of threat of discharge or loss of employment to adopt or follow or refrain from adopting or following any particular course or line of political action or political activity.
etc. So in California (where Mozilla is headquartered and where Brendan lives) it is in fact illegal to fire someone for a political donation they make.
Now the actual punishment is a slap on the wrist in practice (see section 1103; it's a $5k maximum fine for the corporation if the employer is a corporation).
Also, I don't know much about the CA law you quote, though I wonder whether it prohibits political discrimination in the _hiring_ of employees at all. Section 1102 definitely prohibits firing based on political activity. I don't see anything that says you can't discriminate on a political basis in _hiring_. Perhaps that is in a different section. I tend to think, e.g., that the Democratic Party organization would not be forced to consider hiring Republicans equally with Democrats, not sure how that's dealt with.
Mozilla is explicitly political. That's like their entire shtick: they want a more open web that respects user freedom and privacy. That's a political stance.
And Mozilla has LGBT employees. They'd like leadership that isn't going to make them feel unwelcome.
Do I have my facts wrong?
Is there something that makes Eich's situation different than Catmull's?
If I understood the difference I feel like I'd be more enlightened.
1. Pixar is a private for-profit company, while Mozilla is at least in part a political nonprofit. For obvious reasons, people are more concerned about the political positions in such a case.
2. I suspect that many people would find the act of donating to a religious body, which holds a wide-ranging diversity of opinions on many subject (not all of which an individual may agree with) as distinct from the explicit act of making a donation for one specific political aim.
Your "basically demoting" story is a new one. What's your source on that?
I'm just going by media reports and the answers the Mozilla leadership gave at the time. It was clear the pressure was on and without you stepping out voluntarily (which was the right gesture, from all points of view), something would have happened which would have damaged the project more -- in that sense, it would have been at odd with the project's aims. I expect you share the same view, or you wouldn't have stepped down in the first place.
I was just pointing out that you weren't fired and you likely would have not been fired in any case; at worst, you would have been moved to a different role; hence "demoted", since most people see the CEO as the pinnacle of a pyramid.
Would you agree that this is a fairer representation of the historical truth, from your point of view, than "Eich was fired"?
/be
You and Mozilla both claim you were not fired and that you chose to step down. Had there not been political pressure from a certain group, would you still have stepped down?
When people hear about your story - it sounds more like being smoked out of your own house. A group wants you ousted due to a donation they disagree with and will be disruptive, give bad PR, or straight up quit developing for Mozilla until and unless you leave. At that point it is within Mozilla's and your best interests for you to step down.
So if you stepped down for entirely unrelated reasons than the rabble rabble going on by a certain group of people - why then? I don't think I've ever seen that answered.
And if you did step down because of the rabble rabble going on - that is what so many people have a problem with. Even if you necessarily don't.
But what a private foundation and/or company promotes or demotes isn't up to its members?
Sounds like a double standard to me.
What is the difference between lynch-mobbing someone because they don't support {fill in your individual preferences or proclivities} and lynch-mobbing someone because they do support {fill in your individual preferences or proclivities}. There is absolutely nothing different than the perspective. Everyone should have the right to express their opinions, even if you don't like them and they are not your favorite thing (to invoke Louis CK) and then a conversation may lead to a debate and that is how better ideas come about.
The process that society is going through right now is really nothing but a hardening of positions, a "liberal" form of tyranny if you will; the overbearing imposition of a particular perspective upon others. Ironically, that is the very thing the "liberal" side claims is done by the "right/conservatives".
What the current state of civilization in the west shares is an apparent inherent stupidity and irrationality that is quite stunning. Up is right, left is forward, down is blue, billion dollar valuations for what is essentially marketing middle-ware, people maintain their own personal state surveillance dossiers on themselves. It's like the world has gone god damn ape shit mad.