Social ***mozilla Firefox ceo forced to resign for personal views****

[Denter]

A blatantly disproportionate analogy, yes but it still applies none the less. One mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter, who's right ? The boundaries have already been set by people, otherwise this situation would not have happened.

I agree "a person has a right to their private life as a fellow citizen. He has a right to disagree with me." However making a public donation, that effects the lives of those fellow citizens is open game. And they in turn showed that disagreement by protesting his position at Firefox. It may not be fair but that's life and it goes on everywhere, at every level. Everything is open to interpretation, an unpopular opinion may still be right, who's to say ?

You are ok with Republican CEOs firing anyone who makes a donation to the DNC or a Dem candidate?

 

[ncordless]

You are ok with Republican CEOs firing anyone who makes a donation to the DNC or a Dem candidate?

Depends. Does the donation to the DNC harm the shareholders' interest?

And we are not talking about a donation to a candidate. We are talking about a donation to try to take someone's right to marriage away.

 

[Jukai]

I wasn't around then, so I really don't know

Shouldn't that be something that came up in your research?

 

[Doughbelly]

Brandon Eich didn't just express his opinion. He successfully took part in action to prevent a group of people from exercising their rights.

While he is free to do so, he is not free from the consequences of his speech and actions, which includes the protests of a large and growing part of society that finds the ideas that he supports repugnant.

Can he function as the CEO of a large, highly visible organization? Society has spoken. It is evident that he cannot. As the public face of Mozilla, his action/opinion on this matter pretty much overshadows everything else.

 

[Bukowski82]

Brandon Eich didn't just express his opinion. He successfully took part in action to prevent a group of people from exercising their rights.

While he is free to do so, he is not free from the consequences of his speech and actions, which includes the protests of a large and growing part of society that finds the ideas that he supports repugnant.

Can he function as the CEO of a large, highly visible organization? Society has spoken. It is evident that he cannot. As the public face of Mozilla, his action/opinion on this matter pretty much overshadows everything else.

Nailed it.

 

[AgentOrange24]

Depends. Does the donation to the DNC harm the shareholders' interest?

And we are not talking about a donation to a candidate. We are talking about a donation to try to take someone's right to marriage away.

They trying to take anyone's right to do anything.

They didn't have the privilege to begin with.

 

[James Keith]

Taking away someone "right" to get married is nothing compared to, say, murdering innocent unborn babies. I mean if you're going to let things be decided by the noisiest fringe.

 

[djacobox372]

Taking away someone "right" to get married is nothing compared to, say, murdering innocent unborn babies. I mean if you're going to let things be decided by the noisiest fringe.

And I'm sure there are lots of people fired for being actively pro-abortion as well.

The difference is that the while opposition for abortion is trending down support for gay marriage is trending up.

Firefox just wants to be 'with the times' and not be seen as backwards thinking.

 

[djacobox372]

You are ok with Republican CEOs firing anyone who makes a donation to the DNC or a Dem candidate?

Companies should be allowed to fire anybody that acts outside of work in a way that harms their companies image.

 

[James Keith]

And I'm sure there are lots of people fired for being actively pro-abortion as well.

Is this an argument that two wrongs make a right, or uniform support for people being aholes about politics?

The difference is that the while opposition for abortion is trending down support for gay marriage is trending up.

Firefox just wants to be 'with the times' and not be seen as backwards thinking.

And what better way to express that then by judging people by what they did back in 2008. Next let's pore over the things Obama said back then.

 

[Doughbelly]

Two things.

Mozilla's CEO wasn't fired, he resigned. Even if he didn't, a CEO of a large company is not like a regular line employee. CEOs and other high level executives of large organizations are retained under personal services contracts, which are more or less built on the foundation that the person is uniquely suitable for the the job. While it might have been that he could have been a good leader for the company, the public furor over (and rejection) of his publicly held opinions and actions make it doubtful that he could effectively lead the organization now.

The reality of modern society is that there are opinions that modern Western society finds unacceptable in their leadership and this is one of them. If you want to be a racist or a Holocaust denier, keep that shit to yourself. Otherwise, don't expect to be able to function in high responsibility, high visibility roles.

It's 2014. Almost a supermajority of Americans support gay marriage rights. If you're in that shrinking minority that can't read the writing on the wall, well, your poor judgment should be in question as well.

 

[drowningidiot]

He donated money to a morally and intellectually bankrupt movement comprised of bigots and morons and this is what they did with it:



It's practically sketch comedy.

 

[ABACA]

Two things.

Mozilla's CEO wasn't fired, he resigned.

That's not the issue. The issue is that his feelings were hurt by the harassers on twitter who had no right since they didn't use money as their means of political speech.

 

[aldeniro78]

Liberals are unbearable.

 

[Doughbelly]

That's not the issue. The issue is that his feelings were hurt by the harassers on twitter who had no right since they didn't use money as their means of political speech.

It is the issue.

As society changes, there are positions which high-profile leaders can no longer hold because society at large will castigate them for it. Today, being against gay marriage, and by extension, equal rights for homosexuals is one of those positions. In decades past, it was segregation, before that, it was the right of women to vote and so on. It's actually remarkable how quickly the public thinking on marriage equality has changed in the past 10 years alone. If you are against marriage equality rights, then in the US, you are now in the minority. This wasn't true even five years ago.

For better or worse, being the leader of the company that produces the browser which a fifth of Americans access their Internet through means that you're now a public figure. If you can't handle the heat because of things you've said and done, maybe you don't belong in the kitchen.

The public didn't give two hoots when he was merely the CTO of Mozilla Corps. That's a behind the scenes role. OTOH, accepting a position as the face of Mozilla is inviting public criticism.

 

[ABACA]

Doughbelly, I was being sarcastic.

 

[kpt018]

Because it opens to the door to discrimination and bigotry influencing the private sector on the back of free speech. Now those deeply conservative communities can boycott someone who supported the prop. Suppose they actually know that this person is gay and don't like that, but they take this and run with it. This is a matter of sensitivity to dissent in understanding that you could at one point be the one losing the job, and asking if that is just, or sensible. I have no protested a co-worker's employment based on any belief, no matter how absurd or contrary to my own, or how much they post (with "public" tagging) on Facebook about it. We must co-exist.

Does it matter to you that the person terminated (or forced to step down) was the CEO, face of the organization and an employer (vs an employee with no hiring ability and does not manage others, public exposure, etc.)?

There's no evidence to my knowledge (but not following that closely) that he acted inappropriately in his business life. But I wonder if the appearance that he may matters to you and other posters.

I'm not disputing what you've said in this thread, I agree with a lot of it. But I think this situation has some interesting nuances. My first reaction was "adios asshole" but there are some bigger points to be made about the situation, like the question of whether a company can terminate you for personal behavior/opinions expressed outside of your place of business. But I can also see how a gay employee of Mozilla can wonder whether they will be treated fairly (assuming they are high level enough to even warrant the CEO's attention) or how the BODs can question him.

 

[OldGoat]

Depends. Does the donation to the DNC harm the shareholders' interest?

And we are not talking about a donation to a candidate. We are talking about a donation to try to take someone's right to marriage away.

Ridiculous point of view. Should be able to fire people based on political bumper stickers as well.

 

[OldGoat]

That's not the issue. The issue is that his feelings were hurt by the harassers on twitter who had no right since they didn't use money as their means of political speech.

That is borderline retarded. Parse your paragraph and try to make sense out of it.

 

[kpt018]

Ridiculous point of view. Should be able to fire people based on political bumper stickers as well.

I'm not sure if you're trolling, but the "don't discuss politics or religion" at work holds true and I think having bumper stickers on your car (which is parked at your place of business) is included. Obviously you have the right to, but it could be bad for your career.