Jwz and Brendan Eich discuss the origins of JavaScript (2010)
jwz.org
jwz.org
The German-Pirate-Party-Death-spiral.
Many of you might have heared about the Pirate Party, and probably some remeber that, curiously, it was rather successful in Germany. Starting 2009, the number of party members rose (beyond 10.000) and the party started winning seats in regional parliaments. At the time, it was primarily focused on its technology/freedom agenda.
Then something weird happened. As the party tried to expand its programatic range beyond technology, many very controversial topics were voted into the program (base-income, de-criminalization of drugs, removal of the incest paragraph).
Discussions became very heated between those that wanted the party to firmly anchor itself in the "left" of the political spectrum, and those opposed to such a move.
And then they started attacking the elected representatives. Every publically visible person who had done or said something problematic in the past was publically "shitstormed". The half-life of party leaders sank down to months. This caused what is essentially the slow death of the party, since, for much of the time, there were too few people with experience at the top, too few the press could speak too.
Americans are more vulnerable to this kind of behaviour, since the separation between professional role and personal acts/views that we have in Europe is missing.
French presidents have had mistresses, left their wives, German chancellors have had three failed marriages, or a childless marriage. We had an openly gay foreign minister and ministers who refused to say "god" in their swearing in ceremony.
Top American politicians are always married with children church-going Christians, because the populace will not support "personal weaknesses".
No separation between person and office.
The internet is the ultimate shitstorm-accelerator. If there is no barrier between the private life and the professional life of highly-exposed figures, they will fall like flies.
I'm personally an ardent supporter of gay rights issues, but must say that in this case, the collateral damage could well be as bad as in the first cases in the German Pirate Party.
Now all the Mozilla employees who want to rise through the ranks must have personal views that conform to public opinion in the USA. I'm strictly anti-gun, so I probably would be "shot down" at some point, were I a leading Mozilla figure.
And don't think this will stop if Eich just goes away.
Let's all hope that Linus or one of the other (unlike Eich) really important community leaders doesn't have controversial views.
Look on the bright side. I have a secret hope that the shitstorm will keep growing until it attracts the attention of US right-wingers and unleashes a Chick-Fil-A-style backlash of Firefox adoption. ;)
What does the fox say about assault rifle ownership?
See the problem now?
Are we planning on throwing a fit every time somebody, somewhere doesn't agree with us?
That seems like an enormous waste of energy that could go to better use & doesn't seem to be a wise way to choose your battles. It's amazing how easily we like to get offended these days.
It's one thing to disagree about optimal economic policy or how prisons should be run. For these issues there are legitimate, differing views with different goals and different ways of reaching those goals. And indeed, it would be silly to throw a fit over such a disagreement.
Using your power, whether it's your vote, your money, or your vocal platform, to deny other humans basic rights for no valid reason other than "some old book kinda says it might be wrong if you read it in this particular way" is not that kind of issue. There is a right and a wrong side here, just as there is in human slavery or giving all adults the right to vote. It's entirely reasonable to throw a fit when someone is using their power to deny you, your loved ones, or simply your fellow countrymen their basic right to happiness.
It is baffling to me how you can write off fighting back against real and effective attacks on the basic rights, dignity, and even humanity of homosexuals as "getting offended."
There is evident conflict between the two. Discriminating against Eich expressing his religious views would be immoral to some people, in the same way discriminating against gays is immoral to some people.
Ultimately, we have to decide whether beliefs qualify in a class where all the other items (race, gender, sexual orientation) are considered innate.
Until we have that debate nothing will be solved.
Edit: because this got downvoted almost immediately, I'd like to clarify: I am not expressing an opinion either way in this matter, but rather highlighting a much larger conflict the matter is part of.
The entire issue is that this was an attempt to promote a belief likely grounded in religion into a law denying others a basic right. That cannot be permitted.
There's not much point to freedom of religion if you're not allowed to vote according to those beliefs.
> The entire issue is that this was an attempt to promote a belief likely grounded in religion into a law denying others a basic right. That cannot be permitted.
There are many restrictions put in place because they are voted for based of peoples beliefs, including their religious ones. Why can this not be permitted?
How can we know if a law is religiously motivated?
I shouldn't have to say this, but HN quality these days is so poor that I will: I support gay marriage. But people are turning this into a black and white issue. It isn't.
And I don't think people should be punished for voting in a way that meets their moral beliefs, even if those moral beliefs are spiritually grounded.
There's not much point to claiming a free society if a religious bloc can vote away everyone else's freedom.
You might not support that, which is reasonable, there's a lot of Libertarians in tech and I do understand where they're coming from. http://i.imgur.com/fV2tHeu.jpg illustrates the point quite nicely.
However: most people don't understand or agree with this, and believe in democracy and its compromises, including shitty things likes rules that may restrict you based on a majority of opponents.
Under the US constitution, this is blatantly false. See, for example, the First through Fourth Amendments, which place restrictions on what sorts of laws can be created.
If it can be justified through non-religious means, then the law itself can be described as not being religiously motivated. Opposing gay marriage cannot be justified through non-religious means. And it's not through lack of trying, just look at any of the recent court cases.
> There's not much point to freedom of religion if you're not allowed to vote according to those beliefs.
Sure there is. You can do whatever your religion dictates you to do, so long as it doesn't require /other/people/ to follow those dictates, or prevent other people from following their (lack of) religious dictates. This seems a reasonable compromise. I certainly can't think of a better way of peacefully resolving the conflict. Apparently neither could the writers of the US constitution.
> But people are turning this into a black and white issue. It isn't.
The particular issue of the legality of gay marriage is a black and white issue, just like womens and minority suffrage were.
Yes it can. Someone against gay marriage may make a point that marriage is a framework for raising children and that children have the right to parents of both genders, for example. You may feel that it shouldn't be justified that way, but that doesn't mean that it cannot be justified that way by others.
> You can do whatever your religion dictates you to do, so long as it doesn't require /other/people/ to follow those dictates, or prevent other people from following their (lack of) religious dictates. This seems a reasonable compromise. I certainly can't think of a better way of peacefully resolving the conflict. Apparently neither could the writers of the US constitution.
Morality is enforced on others all the time, frequently in the US. Sometimes it's more religiously informed, other times less so. Most people are religious, and hence most people's morality is informed by their religion.
> The particular issue of the legality of gay marriage is a black and white issue, just like womens and minority suffrage were.
Gay marriage may be black and white in 2050, but it isn't now for most people - that's why they voted against it. Women's suffrage is a black and white issue now, but it certainly wasn't at the time.
They are significant changes with how we, as a society, live, and while you may not struggle with it, other people may - especially older people, that doesn't mean they should be punished.
Eich has convictions that are typical of his age and religious viewpoints. I don't agree, but I do understand and he is allowed to have those viewpoints.
Note: since this post has the HN 'controversial' flag set, I can't reply readily - this post took a few hours to be able to send, so this will be my last post in the thread.
Thanks for being pleasant, even if we disagree.
Where is the public outrage over death-penalty supporters in the FOSS world?
I'm not sure that's true. Look at our murder laws for example. We have several different degrees of murder severity, depending on planning and forethought. In some cases murder is even downgraded to voluntary manslaughter where it legally is no longer considered murder. Causing the death of another human is hardly a black and white issue.
In short, a reasonable person could argue that removing certain people from the population is the best course of action. You and I may disagree, but this other person does have some rationale to back up his/her argument.
Here in Europe it is seen as imperative that the state should never be allowed to intentful kill one of its citizens.
I have to laugh every time someone uses this argument.
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
I could quote some choice passages, but you should really read it in full. I'm pretty sure every single last one of you has "voted or supported with your vocal platform" positions or politicians taking positions that are directly contrary to what's in there.
We're in a society where even in the most progressive of places we're so far away from this ideal, that whenever someone claims something isn't a political issue because it's "obviously the right thing", I want to throw up.
Eich does not seem to have decided that one yet. IMO, a CEO should be better at politics.
as for upsetting "a few people", everyone has the right to react when upset.
Eich's active support for the notion the gay people cannot have equal civil rights is well beyond just "controversial". OKCupid summed it up well as "those who seek to deny love and instead enforce misery, shame and frustration".
Not every "controversial" view should be treated with equal respect. Vile, hateful and vicious views warrant shitstorms.
There is a constant pattern in tech to sweep sexism, homophobia and racism under the rug as "just someones personal views".
The responses of many of those people who are against Eich in this case can best be described as "vile, hateful and vicious", to use your words. Their calls for him to lose his job, or for Mozilla as a whole to suffer boycotts, can be described as an effort to "enforce misery, shame and frustration".
The problem here is that we have some people claiming to be against discrimination, yet they in turn have absolutely no problem engaging in such behavior toward Eich.
I think that this sort of hypocrisy really undermines their cause, and most of them don't seem to realize this.
Those of us "discriminating" against Eich are doing so based on his voluntary behavior.
You are suggesting a false equivalence.
Again, look at it from another point of view. There is a reason there are Christian 'conversion' camps, these people simply don't see it as being set in stone.
I can understand a point of view and even support one's freedom to practice it (by the government), but I also can do everything in my legal power to make sure those views are marginalized and the damage they inflict minimized.
Which is no less than what anti-gay marriage folks have been doing. And losing the battle, I might add.
One could argue that in this era of social change we should be more tolerant of anti-gay marriage folks, bigots, etc, as this is a generational divide that will pass.
However would also could make an argument that when (a) you're a public figure as the CEO of a major nonprofit and (b) you've publicly stated and financially supported the potentially bigoted position, you will be the target of counter-attacks.
So, no I don't shed a tear for Brendan Eich. If the first thing he did as Mozilla CEO was to hold a press conference to repudiate his prior actions no that he is a public figure and commit Mozilla to gay-friendliness (not "internal memo" stuff we've been hearing), there would have been no issue. The organization is largely identified with its leadership, and this drama is playing out like a host rejecting a donor organ - this isn't just outside opinion, Mozilla employees are speaking out!
They are based in California, what did they expect?
Well, Prop 8 did pass, so...
I make a simple claim: equality before the law, for all persons, is a necessary feature of a free society.
Notice how this says nothing about "tolerance", "discrimination", "diversity", "inclusiveness" nor any of the other frankly pathetic attempts people have tried at the "you're just as bad" argument.
The line is drawn at attempting to create a society in which not all persons are equal before the law. Proposition 8 crossed that line, and I feel free to condemn it and its supporters with all my strength.
It's a culturally significant ritual and definitely of high symbolic importance for a lot of people, but that's as far as I can say.
"Vile, hateful and vicious" views would be doing something akin to what Pat Robertson does. The most you could say about Eich is that his views are objectionable, but they do not seem to be at any focal point of his ideology.
The tactic of "social justice ad shitstorm" does not work in doing anything besides inflaming people's prejudices even more, raising other people's sense of moral superiority and giving a headache to anyone else who doesn't feel like viewing `Outrage Porn #{MAX_INT}`.
b) "The tactic .. does not work" - this is just plain false. many important social changes were brought about through protesting against injustice.
b) This is a very, very watered down form of "protesting against injustice". You're essentially attacking one person and trying to boycott the decades of seminal work by a non-profit foundation for free software over one morally objectionable act. One that he does not seem to bring into his workplace, and one that by the way, got ruled unconstitutional and overturned. It has no present effect on anyone.
Of course, it is remarkably less difficult to do that, while still flying under the guise of a greater cause.
b) there is no imperative for Mozilla to have him as the CEO. however, when Mozilla places him as CEO and sticks to it, then it is a potential problem.
Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Haber -- just the glasses should be enough to tell you this man might be very evil, and he is indeed "the father of chemical warfare". But wait, he's also responsible for the discovery that allows huge numbers of people to live. Now what?
Let's simply assume Brendan Eich is a very evil man, that prop 8 is just the tip of the iceberg. Well, but, Mozilla. Now what?
How about this, if you propose to throw the baby out with the bath water, find us a new baby first? Let's use computation machines invented for love, let's use fertilizer invented by someone who had at least contact lenses, let's use browsers and languages made by catholic priests who secretly marry gay couples and get hunted all over the world by the pope for that.
I'd be down with that... but first they need to exist. Until then, to let billions of people starve, or to give even more of the web up to Google and Apple, is not actually morally superior to the alternative of realizing that life is messy, humans doubly so, and we don't just owe a lot of what we take for granted to saints, but to the whole spectrum.
> "those who seek to deny love and instead enforce misery, shame and frustration".
That in itself is a rather vicious and dehumanizing view. It's awfully convenient to have people who are pure evil while you yourself are pure good -- it's also nonsense.
and it's not really my career or your career, he's the CEO (!) of Mozilla. it is a company with a certain ideal behind it, and he has opened discussion on whether his past behavior is at odds with that. his defenders too often here take the position that there simply should not be such a discussion...
personally, i do think it is a bit blown out of proportion. but it did offend me. particularly the claim that it is just his freedom of opinion and that Mozilla itself would crumble if he would change his opinion now (?!) and all that hiding behind Indonesian people, what's up with that? in any case, for me it is about me, and my life. it is not some abstract subject. it's not something i can just donate a little money to, and ignore it the rest of the time. it was people voting about my life (i'm from Croatia, but we had our referendum last year), and about a subject that will not concern their life or family at all..
i just must complain... because i don't want to use Chrome :)
Protesting Eich as CEO on grounds of his personal beliefs has very very strong repercussions for Mozilla as a community.
and it's not really my career or your career
It is my career. I'm not CEO and I haven't spoken out on gay marriage, but I have spoken out, personally, on any number of subjects. If Eich is forced to step down, I'd consider myself on strong notice that any personally made statement on any political or moral subject could be a serious limitation to my technical career, even if at the moment I make it it's the majority opinion. How downright insane is that?
and all that hiding behind Indonesian people, what's up with that
He's pointing out that there's Mozilla communities who see things very very differently from the USA-centric shitstorm that he's experiencing. Should we kick them out, or limit their careers, for being bigots?
re.2 - it is, you are right. but i think one issue remains - is his sponsorship of Prop 8 at odds with Mozilla ideals? that should matter when choosing Mozilla's CEO.
re.3 - no. i think it would just be nice if Eich would stand behind his opinion, instead of dragging both Mozilla's future and the whole country of Indonesia into this. none of those Indonesian contributors are CEOs of Mozilla, so their political views do not reflect on the company itself. if a known anti-LGBT Indonesian became CEO, then I don't know, we would probably see a similar reaction.
and P.S. it is kinda racist to imply that all Indonesians are against gay marriage. his dragging that whole country into this is not cool.
Would the voters be so lenient if those chancellors had donated $1000 to an NPD campaign instead?
I'm European as well, and I agree (and like) that we are relatively unconcerned about our leaders' personal lives, but I don't think that contributions to political campaigns would be considered "private life", at least in our small corner of the continent.
EDIT: Curiously, we recently had a similar situation: the director of our biggest food bank (an NGO) gave an interview were she said that we must "re-learn to live poorer", that we "can't eat steak every day if we can't afford it" and that "we are poorer, but there's no poverty".
The interview did originate a major backlash, including a petition pushing for her resignation from the organization (which didn't happen).
So at least in some Europeans countries, political views exposed in public aren't considered just private issues.
What even is the difference between personal & professional life? Performing actions during working hours, or while simply being employed by the company?
I feel this lack of demarcation is a big part of the argument, it's such a fuzzy and wishy washy line that nobody agrees upon.
And so I think the issue is that, while a political opinion can be considered part of the private realm, it's not unfounded to consider a contribution to a political campaign - which has a direct impact in society - as part of the public realm, and hence open to scrutiny.
I'm not sure the issue is really about privacy. Let's go on a small tangent here.
Do you know why secret voting is considered important for democracy? In fact, it's seen as a good feature of a voting system if a voter cannot prove to a third party that they voted a certain way, even if they really want to.
The reason is that democracy works best if your vote is a free expression of your political views, and can't be easily influenced by money or threats. If you have the option of proving your vote to a third party, then the third party can bribe or extort you. If you don't, they can't. (Of course there are more complicated vote buying schemes, but it's worth having some safeguards against the simplest one, at least.)
Note that we don't just have laws that stop the government from buying people's votes, because the government is not the only actor that can buy people's votes. We also want to stop third parties from doing completely legal things that add up to vote buying or vote extortion.
As you can see, the issue isn't really about privacy. The issue is that people should be free to support the political movements they like, and not be punished for it. If you make it harder for people to support the political movements they like, even if your actions are completely legal, you'll get fewer people supporting the movements they like, and more people supporting the movements that others tell them to support. In other words, you get less democracy and more mob rule, or "rule by social pressure" if you prefer. I'm not saying that "rule by social pressure" is a bad system, it might even be better than democracy in some ways, but you have to be honest with yourself if that's what you really support.
And that's why I think attacking Eich for his donation is wrong.
Do you have a loved one? Suppose I use my political clout to separate you from them, permanently. You can never see your partner again.
Do you think I should be punished for such behavior?
I think you should be applauded for enacting laws that make it possible to protect a woman from an abusive man, or for locking up dangerous criminals.
Your example is a bit too vague to be useful.
Obviously I'm trying to draw a parallel between homosexual relationships being deemed as deviant or second-class and something the parent may have understood, namely the pain of being separated from a loved one for no reason.
When the political movement has as its sole and only goal depriving a subset of the population of a basic right, your argument falls apart. And that was the goal of Proposition 8.
Additionally, freedom to speak comes with the freedom of others to shun you for what you say, or to speak freely in condemning your opinions. It cannot be a one-way street.
If you think it should be put up for vote, be prepared to put your right up for vote first.
When it comes to combating interests, the powerful have money, the masses have numbers. Social pressure is not less democratic, it IS democratic in its purest form - it's a group of people standing up for what they believe in. To dissuade social pressure is to defend the status quo. I would much rather have noisy, angry cantankerous democratic debates than a world that purely does what it is told.
And I would also prefer more civilized, structured and rational debate on public policies such as these to the angry/noisy pressure approach. But the disagreements themselves aren't rational, and the powerful have long used their power to dissuade such debate from occurring lest people recognize their irrationality. So you get noise.
> Social pressure is not less democratic, it IS democratic in its purest form - it's a group of people standing up for what they believe in.
I think I slightly disagree with you on that as well, but it's a subtle point so it's okay if people miss it. Basically, by your standards civil war would be the most democratic thing ever. Groups standing up for what they believe in! Yeah! But to me democracy is at least partly about preventing civil war, like ritualized aggression prevents killing in the animal world. Two armies agree to settle the conflict by counting the soldiers on each side, instead of having a battle, and agree to not escalate the conflict if they lose. In other words, if you pressure your political opponents by any means outside the political process, then you're moving away from democracy as I see it. (Though of course there are Prisoner's Dilemma considerations because your opponents might use these tactics even if you don't.)
As for civil wars, you're right to a point, it is an extreme form of democracy... IF they're about the populace vs. an illegitimate minority ruling class that's blocking the will of the people. Civil wars are usually fought about who has the power to rule who, so it's all about ultimately conflicting ideologies anyway! The French Revolution was democracy in action against Le Ancien Régime, but as with any revolt, it can (and was) be perverted to create a new autocracy. The American Civil War was also due to disagreements about the scope of democracy at a regional level, with regards to slavery. Other civil wars were driven by religion, etc. that might be a minority vs. a majority (usually the majority wins, unless they don't have the guns).
Complicating matters is that one of the reasons the US (in theory) has a stable Federalist government is the checks and balances AGAINST democracy: representative government, term limits, states rights, separate judiciary and executive from legislators, different voting cadences for house, senate, and president, etc. This deliberately favours minority protection and slows progress / stabilizes the system in the face of intense disagreement in the hopes that the political process won't break down as compromises are slowly made. It's hard to argue for civil war if there's always an election coming up. Though at some point it might not work and we'll be back to civil war, especially if we ever truly get to a 50/50-ish democratic split on irreconcilable ideological grounds and have gridlock (i.e. I fear another decade of today's political situation).
The parties, in return, must submit yearly financial statements to the legislature. In these, only contributors of more than €10,000 per year must be named. (...) In addition, the accounting responsibilities of the parties free individual members and candidates from burdensome paperwork, while the focus of the disclosure rules on large donors protects the privacy of candidates, elected officials, and small donors.
In general I agree with the view expressed by Kent Pitman (famous Lisp hacker) here: http://open.salon.com/blog/kent_pitman/2010/11/06/on_the_pri... . Basically he says privacy outweighs transparency for small donations, but not large ones. In particular, he mentions Keith Olbermann being suspended by his employer for making a small donation similar to Eich's.
If you want to argue that the Campaign for Prop. 8 shouldn't have to be forced to divulge who made small donations, we can discuss that. But that doesn't imply that we should bury our heads and ignore information which is already public (and which the donors knew was to be published).
To construct an analogy regarding that Eich guy: It would of course be problematic if he was connected in some way to Microsoft or Oracle. Paid speaking engagements come to mind as an example.
I think your point has some merit, but playing Devil's advocate, if one considers this an humans rights issue - which many people do -, isn't it close to every organization?
You are of course right in that human rights issues are special. But there are also other human rights issues for which this could be done.
The death penalty comes to mind.
Also, Mozilla is a worlwide organization. Why does this become so important now, when the US has changed opinions on homosexuality? In some parts of the world, gay marriage has been accepted by the mainstream for years now and there are other parts of the world where it will not be acceptable for a very long time.
Sure, and I wouldn't be surprised if there was a similar backlash had him donated to the campaign against Proposition 34. But how is that an argument against the current issue?
Also, Mozilla is a worlwide organization. Why does this become so important now, when the US has changed opinions on homosexuality? In some parts of the world, gay marriage has been accepted by the mainstream for years now and there are other parts of the world where it will not be acceptable for a very long time.
Because it was now that Mozilla elected a CEO who donated to a campaign against gay marriage? I don't get your point.
You do know proposition 8 passed? which means brendan's view corresponded to the majority of voters... support of gay marriage is hardly "public opinion in the USA"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marr...
I think you have taken a caricature as reality.
I for one would like an actual discussion on whether Eich is a good pick for Mozilla CEO at all.
The former might be just a personal private matter (as the Europeans see it), but the latter certainly is not (even in Europe) as it affects others lives.
I won't presume to second-guess OKC's motives, and I'm glad they took some sort of stand for the LGBT community, but I think they ultimately alienated their users.
Has California divided into two tribes (from the relatively evenly split referendum) where everyone in one tribe is calling the other tribe bigots? And is that a reasonable way to view the world (now multiple years afterwards)?
Edit: I forgot, of course, the big group that didn't vote at all.
And who is the "we" who gets to decide what is agreeable? No, I don't agree with the view behind Prop 8, but neither am I comfortable drawing such a line. To me, drawing such a line is equivalent to Prop 8 in the first place.
Mozilla's mission has nothing to do with gay rights, it's all about what the web should look like. Eich's opinion on gay marriage is immaterial to his work as CEO.
Now, it just so happen that there's a far few queer and ally Mozillians. If Eich's personal opinion were to extend into company policy about those people (or, in general, if his governance were to massively disagree with the company culture in any way), I'd question his fitness to lead. But coming from a company built on inclusiveness and tolerance, the shitstorm they're making about a member's personal opinions seems quite hypocritical, to be completely honest.
i'm pretty sure i have the right to protest what ever i want, regardless of how irrelevant my life problems may seem to you, and regardless of how easy it is for you to ascribe them all to matters of difference of opinion.
"Either you are with us or against us" is a harmful doctrine.
i would not say that it is already won, though. only a minority of US states recognizes gay marriage, and over 70 countries (if i remember correctly) worldwide criminalize homosexuality. and even when it is won, it will still take time for the people affected by the discrimination to simply relax and transcend it all. i would certainly not expect, not even today, that a black person be all reconciliatory with someone supporting an interracial marriage ban... it just doesn't work that way.
and, no offense, but try to consider what it would like to be to walk in my shoes. it is very easy to give advice to other people about how they should handle such problems, but it can easily come across as condescending. all of us in the LGBT community think about and discuss these things A LOT. and what we won so far, we fought for it our way, in a way that we found to work.
I think you're missing the bigger point here. There is one topic I definitely care about more than I do about gay marriage: The capacity to even discuss it, and the right to talk about and support that cause if I see fit. And this is very much a case of what's good for the goose is also good for the gander. If you're OK with blocking Eich's ascension to CEO due to his position, it's hard to justify how you'd then be against other people being blocked like this for holding unpopular opinions.
In my experience, stifling debate usually hurts minorities and makes it easier to maintain the status quo, so if you want to further a minority cause, you need to be able to have open discussion, so all in all I'd rather allow people to voice unpopular opinions — in some circles, I'll be the one doing it!
i was really not that upset about all this, until i read the interview today. he really turned out sleazy, equating himself with the future of Mozilla, hiding behind Indonesian people, proclaiming protests against Mozilla keeping him on as being anti-freedom... he truly came off bad.
edit: but it still kinda lingers, the question - does his behavior fit with Mozilla ideals?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_excep...
No, I do not recognize your assertion that there is a "reasonable" difference.
I think promoting him was a mistake; you don't. Such is life.
Green--on the other hand--is actively trying to tell his employees how to use their compensation given for the work they've done for him. Would Green reach into his employee's pockets and take out greenbacks if he knew they were being used to buy condoms and booze? The proposition is more likely than Eich discriminating against gays in his role at Mozilla.
If Eich has actively discriminated against employees at Mozilla, then yeah, he needs to be kicked out. Show me where that has happened. But what he does in his private life (that he didn't advertise, which makes this an excellent case study in the need for privacy-even-for-legal-activities) has no bearing.
But the fact that he's mentioning places like Indonesia and their anti-gay-marriage stance as a bolstering rationale worries me. Then again, I have very little skin in this game.
And no, we're not talking about whatever Mr Hobby Lobby does - because that's wholly irrelevant to this discussion about Eich and Mozilla.
Richard Wagner was an anti-semite. I see nothing contradictory about enjoying his music while also thinking that (if he was still alive) he shouldn't run an organisation of musicians which has Jewish members. (To be clear: I'm not saying I necessarily hold that position wrt Eich, just that contrary to the parent's implication, it isn't a hypocritical position to hold).