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.
I think though, that any society has certain precepts, unwritten rules, about things. For instance, as a society, we feel strongly that children should be off limits when their parents are involved in a debate over issues.
What are the rules/understandings about private individuals and their political activities? Is a donation really a public announcement of one's views? If I donate to the National Conservancy, should that become a public issue?
I'm sure someone, somewhere objects to the National Conservancy. If they found out you supported them they could make hay about it, sure. It won't go anywhere because it isn't that controversial an opinion, but they could. Anti-civil rights orgs, pro-despotic regime groups, certain religious groups, groups linked with terrorism or other unethical behaviors would have a LOT more people pissed off at you. And if you are the head of something important then even more people will care and it can quickly snowball into the situation Mozilla's former CEO found himself in. Or the duck dynasty guy or whoever else.
People are free to speak about their interests. People are free to support groups that speak in support of their interests. People are free to buy or not buy whatever products or services someone who has those opinion is a part of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bulldawg82
The moment this guy would have opened his mouth in public, that would have made him fair-game to debate the issue. However, he gave privately (and not on behalf of Mozilla). He did so as a private citizen and that is his constitutional right. The law that should protect him already exists, but is just being ignored. If he is "fair-game", then we all are. Nearly all Americans work for a company and there has to be a time when you are a private citizen and when you represent the company you work for (or own). No differentiation was given here. This guy was ruined because he exercised free speech and the opposition used a campaign to affect Mozilla (thru the free market). People should NEVER be attacked (and lose their livelihood) like this for expressing their Constitutional rights.
People who were pissed about his stance didn't force him to resign either, Mozilla did. They could have easily released a statement saying that his donation didn't reflect the culture or goals of Mozilla corp but they were standing behind his constitutional right to take those actions. They didn't.
There is no constitutional right that protects you from being fired because you made your company look bad. The constitutional right is your right to be able to say what you want. Not to be able to say what you want with no consequences. I could walk around saying women shouldn't be able to vote or speak in public. Someone stopping me from doing so would be a violation of my constitutional rights. Someone writing my boss and telling them and saying they are pissed and never doing business with my company again until I am fired would be a repercussion of my action and NOT a violation of my constitutional rights to say what I said in the first place.
you said that corporations, according to conservatives, can do no wrong, that was a lie. corporations can do wrong according to just about everyone i know. that was the post i was responding to. regardless of who pressured eich to resign, or pressured for his termination, it was wrong to do so. but as i said, mozilla got punked by the CEO of another company, the question is why? especially when that CEO also donated to anti gay causes.
you said that corporations, according to conservatives, can do no wrong, that was a lie. corporations can do wrong according to just about everyone i know. that was the post i was responding to. regardless of who pressured eich to resign, or pressured for his termination, it was wrong to do so. but as i said, mozilla got punked by the CEO of another company, the question is why? especially when that CEO also donated to anti gay causes.
Location: In a Galaxy far, far away called Germany
4,300 posts, read 4,408,318 times
Reputation: 2394
Quote:
Originally Posted by EntropyGuardian
I'm sure someone, somewhere objects to the National Conservancy. If they found out you supported them they could make hay about it, sure. It won't go anywhere because it isn't that controversial an opinion, but they could. Anti-civil rights orgs, pro-despotic regime groups, certain religious groups, groups linked with terrorism or other unethical behaviors would have a LOT more people pissed off at you. And if you are the head of something important then even more people will care and it can quickly snowball into the situation Mozilla's former CEO found himself in. Or the duck dynasty guy or whoever else.
People are free to speak about their interests. People are free to support groups that speak in support of their interests. People are free to buy or not buy whatever products or services someone who has those opinion is a part of.
People who were pissed about his stance didn't force him to resign either, Mozilla did. They could have easily released a statement saying that his donation didn't reflect the culture or goals of Mozilla corp but they were standing behind his constitutional right to take those actions. They didn't.
There is no constitutional right that protects you from being fired because you made your company look bad. The constitutional right is your right to be able to say what you want. Not to be able to say what you want with no consequences. I could walk around saying women shouldn't be able to vote or speak in public. Someone stopping me from doing so would be a violation of my constitutional rights. Someone writing my boss and telling them and saying they are pissed and never doing business with my company again until I am fired would be a repercussion of my action and NOT a violation of my constitutional rights to say what I said in the first place.
His constitutional rights were violated. He made that contribution as a private citizen and then a campaign ensued to hurt Mozilla. Mozilla was put into the position of pressuring him (perhaps, we don't really know if the CEO didn't just resign to save the company the pain). The ability to take someone's livelihood away due to the exercise of free speech is a violation of the Constitution. Repercussions, such as this, is EXACTLY the kind of protection that the amendment was suppose to protect us from. Now, this precedent will treat all of us as if we were someone running for President - everything we ever said, done, donated, marched for - will be under a microscope. Anyone who opposes you or your values will now attack via the "Free" Market. Leave it to us to turn something that is supposed to be "free" into a form of oppression.
Behind the times I see. Go look it up, it was all over the net yesterday.
Can't back up your claims?
Let's see. He donated to a candidate, not a cause.
He has made a statement about said donation, and his reasons for donating to that particular candidate.
Quote:
In an emailed statement to The Huffington Post, Yagan said he was not aware of Cannon's stance on gay rights at the time and that his support for the Congressman stemmed specifically from his positions on Internet and intellectual property rights.
"I accept responsibility for not knowing where he stood on gay rights in particular," Yagan writes. "I unequivocally support marriage equality and I would not make that contribution again today." Here's the statement in its entirety:
"A decade ago, I made a contribution to Representative Chris Cannon because he was the ranking Republican on the House subcommittee that oversaw the Internet and Intellectual Property, matters important to my business and our industry. I accept responsibility for not knowing where he stood on gay rights in particular; I unequivocally support marriage equality and I would not make that contribution again today. However, a contribution made to a candidate with views on hundreds of issues has no equivalence to a contribution supporting Prop 8, a single issue that has no purpose other than to affirmatively prohibit gay marriage, which I believe is a basic civil right."
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.
