Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 3rd Apr 2014 19:40 UTC
Mozilla & Gecko clones

Mozilla prides itself on being held to a different standard and, this past week, we didn't live up to it. We know why people are hurt and angry, and they are right: it's because we haven't stayed true to ourselves.

We didn’t act like you'd expect Mozilla to act. We didn't move fast enough to engage with people once the controversy started. We're sorry. We must do better.

Brendan Eich has chosen to step down from his role as CEO. He's made this decision for Mozilla and our community.

The only sensible move.

Thread beginning with comment 586218
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
karunko
Member since:
2008-10-28

You're confused about what free speech is. Free Speech does not mean "ZERO CONSEQUENCES."

No I'm not. Of course you can say what you want and still be liable if you commit slander/libel and you can't shout "fire!" in a crowded theater. However:

However, there is no censorship, or barring of speech, by a government whatsoever involved in this instance.

So let me get this straight: censorship from the government is bad, but censorship from the mob is okay? Do you realize that freedom of speech means nothing if you're going to be lynched by the mob for having an opinion that doesn't fit with current times?

And makes you look like an idiot.

Thank you for proving my point! Please, enjoy your enlightened ways and your higher moral ground.


RT.

Edited 2014-04-04 05:44 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

No I'm not. Of course you can say what you want and still be liable if you commit slander/libel and you can't shout "fire!" in a crowded theater.


No, I don't think you do because you aren't addressing what's relevant. No one's view is being censored, certainly not by a government.

So let me get this straight: censorship from the government is bad, but censorship from the mob is okay?


Yes, using your grossly inaccurate terms, but yes. Governments suppressing the free expression of ideas is bad; stupid, ignorant, bigoted views getting shouted down and losing in the market place of ideas is good. Yes.

Do you realize that freedom of speech means nothing if you're going to be lynched by the mob for having an opinion that doesn't fit with current times?


No, actually, I don't. I don't want nor need the government to protect me from being stupid or having stupid ideas or having other people disagree with me. I'm perfectly fine with that. And I don't see how trying to suppress and eliminate stupidity or ignorance is in any way antithetical to the First Amendment. (This is maybe the first time I can point to Internet Speak making people stupid; people actually think shouting, "Because Free Speech" is a valid argument and that it is their argument, without realizing they don't know what free speech is.

I actually think the market place of ideas (where idiocy can get mocked and decried until it ceases to be) is a very fruitful and complimentary aspect to Free Speech.

Thank you for proving my point! Please, enjoy your enlightened ways and your higher moral ground.


You're welcome.

Reply Parent Score: 2

jal_ Member since:
2006-11-02

So let me get this straight: censorship from the government is bad, but censorship from the mob is okay?

Asking someone to step down after making a controversial statement is NOT censorship. You really don't seem appreciate that "freedom of speech" does not entail "without consequences".

Do you realize that freedom of speech means nothing if you're going to be lynched by the mob for having an opinion that doesn't fit with current times?

He wasn't lynched. At worst you could say he was forced to resign.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Olafson Member since:
2014-04-07

*Forced* to step down is bad enough. The original point stands: freedom of speech isn't as free as we would like it to be if using it, even politely, means being forced out of your job. If someone holds a view that is unpopular with some group, the threat of being *forced* out of one's job puts pressure on that person to restrain voicing their opinion. "If you vote for X, expect your tires to be slashed!" It is not beneficial to democracy to punish the polite use of free speech. Punishing the impolite use, I believe, has a place.

This whole freedom of speech with consequences argument rarely gets down to the bone of the matter. Of course there are consequences every time you open your mouth. There are consequences for everything you do, say, think, hear, etc. The root question is what consequences are fair and what are excessively punitive? We all agree that torching someone's car because they told a racist joke is an immature, undesirable response. Almost no one simply says, "Sorry, consequences..." But that is because property damage is illegal, even when mildly provoked. How about forcing someone out of their job? Isn't the loss of income as bad or worse? Yet it's perfectly legal action... I guess it's just "consequences".

Lastly, there is the concept of politeness in freedom of speech. There is certainly a difference we all recognize, between someone who walks around screaming, at the top of their lungs, that gay marriage is the mark of the beast, and someone who politely expresses discomfort and concern around the issue, while noting that they feel that gay individuals should be treated respectfully and given every chance to make their own voices be heard. When one attempts to be polite in expressing a dissenting view, a polite response is hoped for. Refusing to make this distinction is easily done over the impersonal medium of the Internet, on the back of a story made of up fragments of knowledge, floating in the controversial-issue-du-jour. The threats and actions of OkCupid, blocking Firefox users, is not respectful at all. It's the equivalent of "vote for us or we'll slash your tires."

Reply Parent Score: 1