Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One should have the moral courage to stand by one’s speech. Especially if it’s political speech intended to influence and affect the lives of others. This is a long accepted precedent. Political donations must be disclosed by law—apart from the weird SCOTUS/soft money shenanigans. Disclosure is our best defence against corruption.
Also, all donations are not speech. Charitable donations are treated differently than political donations.
Treating different donations differently doesn't make some not speech. But I'm willing to entertain that there is a difference. Please make an argument.
As for having the moral courage. Punishing other for exercising their free speech is not an act of moral courage.
And corruption via donations has already been discussed. Run of the mill donations are generally not involved in political corruption, so another reason to publicly disclose them needs to be proffered. Especially when such public disclosure could lead to suppression of donations, and therefore suppression of political participation.
It's a controversial opinion to express. He sought a high-profile position and sorely miscalculated the response of interested parties (the devs who contribute to Mozilla, the companies who make use of it, and the users).
Like I said, it's amazing how we have new rules now that gay marriage is around. I mean, now we are to believe that "interested parties" are fine with him being against gay marriage as CTO, but not as CEO. The companies who use Firefox are like "I can use this product if the CTO is against gay marriage, but not if the CEO is!" LOL, yeah, OK.
I tend to think, though, that people will usually speak in support of things they feel strongly about, in spite of the possible social repercussions. And there are anonymous outlets for speaking--one could start an anonymous blog in support of a political position, for example.
If the social repercussion involves national exposure of you personal beliefs, attacks on your place of employment in order to force your employer to remove you from your position, and potential loss of your livelihood, that's pretty intimidating for the average citizen.
Certain positions in a company are more prominent and if someone holds then with backwards opinions it causes the company more embarrassment than when they were in less prominent positions. When more people take notice, the company is forced to either support the person or get them out.
If you can't tell the difference between Richard Branson and Phillip Maher and why one's opinions would be more damaging to Virgin than the other then I don't know what to tell you.
Certain positions in a company are more prominent and if someone holds then with backwards opinions it causes the company more embarrassment than when they were in less prominent positions. When more people take notice, the company is forced to either support the person or get them out.
If you can't tell the difference between Richard Branson and Phillip Maher and why one's opinions would be more damaging to Virgin than the other then I don't know what to tell you.
Ooo, I guess I have to listen, since this guy said that something he disagreed with was a "backward opinion."
Certain positions in a company are more prominent and if someone holds then with backwards opinions it causes the company more embarrassment than when they were in less prominent positions. When more people take notice, the company is forced to either support the person or get them out.
If you can't tell the difference between Richard Branson and Phillip Maher and why one's opinions would be more damaging to Virgin than the other then I don't know what to tell you.
If it's wrong to target the average citizen for his beliefs, how can it be right to target any citizen for his beliefs?
Just because Richard Branson is wealthy and newsworthy, he merits attack. But because I'm poor and not newsworthy, I don't merit attack?
This seems to me to feed into the argument of intimidation. By targeting the newsworthy, one is making a point to everyone else. If you share this person's opinions, you deserve to be punished.
Treating different donations differently doesn't make some not speech. But I'm willing to entertain that there is a difference. Please make an argument.
As for having the moral courage. Punishing other for exercising their free speech is not an act of moral courage.
And corruption via donations has already been discussed. Run of the mill donations are generally not involved in political corruption, so another reason to publicly disclose them needs to be proffered. Especially when such public disclosure could lead to suppression of donations, and therefore suppression of political participation.
Donations to charity are not matters of public record, where donations to political campaigns are (at least federal campaigns and California campaigns). The reason to publicly disclose donations is that disclosure is legally required (it was instituted as a corruption prevention measure, surely). If you can come up with a better system for preventing corruption, then I would be interested. I don't really think that $1,000 donations should be anonymous.
While the Court has expressed its opinions about campaign donations being "speech," they are not infallible, though their rule is law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by smalltownblues
Like I said, it's amazing how we have new rules now that gay marriage is around. I mean, now we are to believe that "interested parties" are fine with him being against gay marriage as CTO, but not as CEO. The companies who use Firefox are like "I can use this product if the CTO is against gay marriage, but not if the CEO is!" LOL, yeah, OK.
That is more or less what happened. There were some tweets and some concern about the donation back in 2012. It was reignited when Eich was appointed CEO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
If the social repercussion involves national exposure of you personal beliefs, attacks on your place of employment in order to force your employer to remove you from your position, and potential loss of your livelihood, that's pretty intimidating for the average citizen.
The average citizen is not going to be subject to this kind of scrutiny, as a practical matter, because they are not in high-profile positions. Even if they are high-profile, they are only subject to social repercussions if they choose to make their personal beliefs public.
And let's not exaggerate--there were no attacks on the place of employment and the employer was not forced to remove Eich and he did not lose his livelihood. He resigned. He will be able to find a job.
If it's wrong to target the average citizen for his beliefs, how can it be right to target any citizen for his beliefs?
Just because Richard Branson is wealthy and newsworthy, he merits attack. But because I'm poor and not newsworthy, I don't merit attack?
This seems to me to feed into the argument of intimidation. By targeting the newsworthy, one is making a point to everyone else. If you share this person's opinions, you deserve to be punished.
If you told me that you voted one way or another on a particular ballot measure, I would be free to picket on the streets, arguing that your political beliefs are vile. No one would care. People care when someone of Richard Branson's stature expresses controversial beliefs.
If it's wrong to target the average citizen for his beliefs, how can it be right to target any citizen for his beliefs?
Just because Richard Branson is wealthy and newsworthy, he merits attack. But because I'm poor and not newsworthy, I don't merit attack?
This seems to me to feed into the argument of intimidation. By targeting the newsworthy, one is making a point to everyone else. If you share this person's opinions, you deserve to be punished.
It's not wrong. No one is off limits or above criticism. The thing is, more people are going to bring up your backwards, homophobic, gay-hating, idiotic views when you are CEO and the face of a company than if you are head scooper at cold stone or CTO.
No one is drawing a distinction here. The more prominent you are, the more likely people are going to care or notice that you have a regressive, wrongheaded, stupid outlook. It isn't like you have to pass a prominence test before it is "right" for people to call you an *******. If you are a nobody it is likely that not many people are going to care.
there's not been a time when someone believed something as a CTO or CFO, suddenly became CEO, continued to have the same beliefs, and then was immediately fired/let go/resigned. Just with gay marriage. And now, people are trying to find ways to justify it like "well, the CEO is a more high-profile position." The fact that the CEO is a more high-profile position is true, but it's irrelevant. Like if I said "it's because that wall is green." Yes, the wall is green, but so what?
This is a strange situation. I doubt it happens very often that corporations hire CEOs that hold and express positions antithetical to the corporations's stated values and mission statement. But that's what happened here. The reaction is hardly surprising.
Imagine if Hobby Lobby appointed as its CEO a pro-abortion feminist who donates money to NARAL Pro Choice America or Planned Parenthood. The outcry from Hobby Lobby employees and the call to boycott from the religious right until that person's removal would dwarf the reaction to Mozilla's hiring of Eich.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
