When analogies and slippery slopes are not your friend

[mme_hardy]

Brendan Eich, CEO of Mozilla, resigned after it became widely known and disliked that he had given money to California's anti-gay marriage Proposition 8. Since then, there have been many wouuld-be even-handed "if this goes on" and "but what about the other side's point of view" and "what does this mean as a general rule" essays.

These essays obscure the point that before a decision becomes a general rule, it is a response to a particular circumstance. If you remove enough of the characteristics of that particular circumstance, the decision ceases to be itself.

"What if they fired the head of GM because she'd given money to Planned Parenthood?"

That is not what happened.

1. Mozilla.org is not GM. Mozilla.org is the for-profit arm of a nonprofit organization, the Mozilla Foundation. Mozilla.org's job is to raise funds for that nonprofit organization, an organization much of whose work is done by volunteers. Some of those volunteers, including entire software projects, withdrew their support after Eich was appointed CEO.

2. Brendan Eich didn't make an arbitrary political statement. He donated money to a campaign whose (successful) goal was to take away an existing civil right. Let's emphasize this. Same-sex couples in California had the legal right to get married thanks to a court decision. Prop. 8's goal was to take away those people's legal rights. Donating money to a campaign to deny civil rights is qualitatively different than "taking a public position". Not all forms of speech are equivalent.

3. Mozilla has made a public statement supporting (among other things) marriage equality.

The decision that it was not appropriate for a senior official in a volunteer-dependent organization to have helped deny rights to an entire class of those volunteers is not an unreasonable one. In order to make it a dangerous general precedent, you have to strip away the inherent properties that identify the decision.

tl;dr: Ignore pundits who want to appear even-handed and dispassionate.

Comments

[sara]

If we want employment protection for advocating for equal marriage (er, I do, because I like having a job and I've been active in the Oregon marriage equality ballot measure campaign, both online and off, over the last year) then we also need employment protection for bigoted assholes. I think employees of nonprofits deserve the same legal protection in the workplace as everyone else. I should not be able to get fired for my advocacy just because I head a nonprofit.

(Because really: 99% of the time it's not the middle-aged white dude who gets canned for his politics. It's the rest of us. We don't want to go down that slippery slope, there are rocks at the bottom.)

That said, Eich never should have been offered the position because this hire had the potential to do massive reputational damage to the organization. Which is exactly what happened. Someone on that hiring committee should have had the good sense God gave a guppy, looked at Eich's record, and realized this was going to be a big PR problem -- and they obviously didn't. Which means Mozilla needs to clean house, not just accept this resignation and figure that they've done their part.

[mme_hardy]

I'm pretty sure I read that one board member resigned in protest because of Eich's appointment.

I think that volunteer employees of all sorts should have freedom of speech except when that speech is antithetical to the expressed principles of the organization. As far as I know, your job doesn't have a stated (for instance) "We adhere to Bible-based Christian values and expect our employees to do the same". (Note: My definition of "Bible-based Christian" is NOT other people's, but I know what the established meaning is.) If they did, they would IMHO be in the right to fire you for activism for marriage equality.

Mozilla explicitly has a "we welcome all kinds of people" statement baked into the organization. Organizing to take away an existing civil right -- and Prop. 8 is very special in this regard -- is antithetical to that value.

[wild_irises]

Ampersand, a blogger I very much like and respect called the OKCupid response (and the right-wing response) attacks on free speech.

I think he's wrong. I think we need to remember that one response to free speech is speech, which can certainly be extended to using our platforms to decide what we will and won't work with and against.

I also really appreciate you teasing out the distinctions.

[mme_hardy]

Ckd has some valuable corrections to my facts; in particular, I'd flipped mozilla.org and mozilla.com.

[mme_hardy]

Here's the thing that I'm passionate about.

Freedom of speech is a feature of the U.S. Federal Constitution. Period, end. Freedom of speech means the Congress (and, since the 14th Amendment, the States) can't limit your speech (except exceptions).

Things it does not mean:
* You're protected from non-state retaliation for your speech
* People aren't allowed to get mad at you for your speech
* Your business should not suffer for your speech
* (critical, and often overlooked) Non-Americans have explicit protection from State limitations of speech.

That's not what it says.

[harvey-rrit.livejournal.com]

I am of a sudden all depressed to realize that your post was necessary because there are people who didn't already get that.

[mme-hardy.livejournal.com]

Probably very few of them on my friendslist, though.

[harvey-rrit.livejournal.com]

I dunno. I've got one guy on mine who is awfully bright (well, they all are, that's why there on it), but he also manifests an extraordinary inability to engage in independent thought when certain topics are broached.

Come to think of it, there's another guy who has a similar problem, though not as extreme, in other areas.

Seems to be mostly guys who do this. Given that pictures are seldom involved, this is probably why most of the people I befriend on LJ are female.

[sartorias.livejournal.com]

Yes, yes, YES. Why is this not clear?

[mme-hardy.livejournal.com]

Because FREEDOM OF SPEECH. (Hint: Congress shall make no law...)

[houseboatonstyx.livejournal.com]

Perhaps because the following facts have not been widely known?

1. ...much of whose work is done by volunteers. Some of those volunteers, including entire software projects, withdrew their support after Eich was appointed CEO.

3. Mozilla has made a public statement supporting (among other things) marriage equality.

[ckd]

A few notes and corrections, none of which change the truth of your argument (which I've also been making :-):

mozilla.org is the foundation; mozilla.com is the Mozilla Corporation, which is 100% owned by Mozilla Foundation and which, in its bylaws, explicitly says "The primary purpose of M.F. Technologies (the “Corporation”) is to advance the Mozilla Foundation’s objectives of promoting choice and innovation on the Internet."

Eich was a perfectly acceptable and accepted CTO for Mozilla Corp from day 1, even though his donations were known about for years. He wasn't pushed to resign because of his speech, he was pushed to resign because he was unable to be effective as CEO. The fact that he couldn't convince volunteers that he was a suitable CEO is, in fact, proof that he wasn't! (It wasn't an impossible task. Had he changed his mind, a mea culpa might have done it.)

[mme-hardy.livejournal.com]

Argh! Will update post when back at desk. Thanks for correction. I had a brain-o.

[malkingrey.livejournal.com]

He wasn't pushed to resign because of his speech, he was pushed to resign because he was unable to be effective as CEO. The fact that he couldn't convince volunteers that he was a suitable CEO is, in fact, proof that he wasn't!

Just so. The free speech issue is irrelevant in this case, regardless of whether one is a broad or narrow constructivist on that particular question.

[nagasvoice.livejournal.com]

Thank you for the clarifications here. I suspect a lot of people had no idea that Mozilla had a nonprofit foundation involved.

[madrobins]

If you haven't seen it: https://whatever.scalzi.com/2014/04/05/brandon-eich-and-mozilla/.

In which John Scalzi is reasonable and sane on the matter. I do wish people could sort out the difference between withdrawal of support for someone expressing a view you don't like (another form of free speech) and actual censorship.