Hacker News Reader

Comment by Aqueous | Hacker News Reader

This is ridiculous. Eich did something many of us - including myself - disagree with wholeheartedly. But he has a right to his opinion. He shouldn't have been fired.

OKCupid's response to this was extreme - "We wish him nothing but failure." Really? Because you disagree with him? I disagree with him too, and believe his view on this single issue is bigoted and crude, but I also recognize that he's made enormous contributions to technology. That's why he was made the CEO of an organization that he helped start, not because of his political beliefs.

If you can't believe something unpopular for fear of losing your job then that's a form of coercion, and it should be as abhorrent to all of us as restricting the right of same-sex individuals to marry.

View on HN

It's not ridiculous. Actions have consequences. A consequence of his action is that he was unable to perform the duties necessary for CEO of Mozilla.

Freedom of expression has never meant freedom from the consequences of your expression. Why don't people understand this?

> Freedom of expression has never meant freedom from the consequences of your expression

That's awesome and I've never heard that said before. If you don't mind, I'm going to steal that one.

Let's take the opposite case. Let's say you were working for a bunch of people who believed wholeheartedly what Eich believes- that same-sex individuals don't have a right to marry - but you expressed that you think they do have a right to marry. Do you think it would be acceptable for them to fire you based on this private belief simply because they disagreed with it? Take this question completely apart from the question of whether or not our belief is correct and theirs is wrong.

What is the limit to the consequences that can be meted out because of your free expression?

That is not logically equivalent. One group is trying to deny another group rights...the other group just wants to be treated equally under the law. Eich, unfortunately, is on the wrong side of history here and he suffered a consequence because of it.

Right - but neither of us have the final authority on what's wrong and what's right. In this situation both sides believe they are right, and then it becomes a matter of who has the power to inflict censure on someone else for their beliefs. In which case, if you were in such a situation, and therefore less powerful than your superiors who believe the opposite of you, wouldn't you want protection from being removed from your job and livelihood simply because you happened to believe something that went against the grain?

If we mete out harsh punishment to people who don't toe the line people become afraid to speak and debate. If we are truly right then our idea will be proven right only through rational argument and rigorous debate. We should be doing everything possible to foster such an atmosphere, and that means sometimes tolerating beliefs that we don't agree with.

I agree that this is not a matter of freedom of expression, but your generic blanket argument for "consequences" also defends lynching as a valid means to impose one's views.

Again, this is not a "political belief". Actively, and I say actively because he donated money for his cause, denying a group of people rights because you disagree with their lifestyle is bigoted.

We wouldn't call it a political view if he was donating to groups trying to remove rights from other minorities, yet it seems ok when talking about LGBT rights and specifically the right to marry.

It most certainly is a political belief in the sense that it deals with a question of public policy that is currently being litigated in the public sphere.

He could have made his donation anonymously, but instead, he chose to do it publicly. His stance against gay people is now a part of his public identity. That was a conscious decision on his part.

One of a CEO's duties is PR, and if you're a PR disaster, then you cannot discharge your duty effectively. That is certainly a valid criteria for employment.

> He could have made his donation anonymously

Well, ignoring campaign finance laws...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com