Is Freedom of Speech Dead in the USA?

[Tropicana]

Mozilla CEO Ousted on Gay Rights Issue

A corporate governance story that never would have occurred even a handful of years ago unfolded this week. Mozilla Corporation CEO Brendan Eich resigned just 10 days after his nomination following outcry from gay-rights advocates, Mozilla employees and much of social media

over his opposition to gay marriage.

I am going to repeat that

over his opposition to gay marriage.

He didn't say all gays fi dead. He didn't advocate skewering gay people and barbecuing them over open pits. He didn't suggest that they be flogged and then pilloried in public squares. He simply upheld Judeo-Christian standards of marriage.

Has the world gone mad?

Eich had donated $1,000 in 2008 to the campaign for Proposition 8, the text approved by voters but rejected by a federal court which would have made same-sex marriages impossible in California.


Eich's fate highlights the quick changes in our societies and how they affect businesses: Mozilla, an innovative, progressive Silicon Valley company, was completely blindsided by the public's reaction.

Chairwoman Mitchell Baker knew of Eich's donation and underestimated its importance: in the tech world at least and increasingly in many industries, gay rights have become non-negotiable.

Wired's Ryan Tate highlights how fast these changes have occurred: Meg Whitman became CEO of HP in 2011 with little controversy after politically campaigning for Prop 8. (She had a change of heart since.)

I wonder why.

The Eich controversy is also prompting some soul-searching among the very advocates who oppose his views (full disclosure – myself included): how much tolerance are intolerant people entitled to? Is being socially conservative privately now a disqualifier for leading a tech company? And are social media lynch mobs an effective or legitimate way to fight a just fight? Jim Edward of Business Insider writes:

At the heart of the move is a fundamental contradiction: Eich's foes disapproved of Eich's intolerance for LGBT people. But in the end they could not tolerate Eich's opinions, which for years he kept private and, by all accounts, did not bring into the workplace.

So he keeps his opinions private, does not bring them into the workplace, does not even speak out against them and he is ousted for making a donation which it should be his right to make.

So is freedom of speech only for those who support gay marriage?

This is ridiculous.

[Tropicana]

The CEO of Mozilla, which makes the popular browser Firefox, has been forced to resign over his opposition to gay marriage.

Brendan Eich was announced as the new CEO of Mozilla in March, but was almost immediately criticised for donations he had previously made to politicians and campaigns supporting a ban on gay marriage in California.


Eich donated $1,000 to a pro 'Proposition 8' campaign in 2011, and also contributed funds to fringe political candidates Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan.


Buchanan in particular is regarded as a divisive figure on the topic of gay rights. He was infamously quoted as having said "our promiscuous homosexuals appear literally hell-bent on Satanism and suicide" in relation to the Aids epidemic. He also once said that "homosexuals have declared war on nature".


Initially refusing to resign, Eich said that the donations were personal and told the Guardian that "the principle that I have operated by, that is formalised in our code of conduct at Mozilla, is it's really about keeping anything that's not central to our mission out of our office".


But as anger built about the donations, and sites including OK Cupid posted messages to users of Firefox that they should switch browsers over the issue, he finally chose to step down on Thursday.


Mitchell Baker, executive chairwoman of the Mozilla Foundation, said in a blogpost that Firefox and Mozilla advocates were "right to be angry".


"We didn’t act like you’d expect Mozilla to act," she wrote in the blogpost.


"We didn’t move fast enough to engage with people once the controversy started. We’re sorry. We must do better."

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/04/04/brendan-eich-resigns-mozilla_n_5089010.html

[blugiant]

da ting iss dat a latt aff oyinbo men inn iigh positions got deer cah dem add addar funnee man behind dem

look inna da news media dem pushinn funnee peeps

look waah gawn widd jamaica newspaper pushinn homosexualitee

look pon da nunsense oyinbo media pushinn bout jamaica becumminn more tallarant

da qwestian iss oww da media iss being used fe shape ann cantrol peeps sthinkinn

boom bye bye iss mii favarate chune

[Tropicana]

One of issues is that some of the producers are gay and they are shoving their agenda down everyone's throat. I couldn't understand why one of the home renovation shows produced in Canada had so many gay couples. Then I read the credits and the producer is a known lesbian and has been for years.

[Tropicana]

If the CEO made a statement like this I could understand why he would have to resign.

boom bye bye iss mii favarate chune

All he did was uphold Judeo-Christian standards of marriage. Unflippin believable.

[blugiant]

[mountaingal]

guy is free to say what he wants. what's happening to him are consequences of him saying what he wants to say. he is still free to speak about his belief that satanism is connected to the homosexual agenda - nobody has taken that freedom away from him.

[blugiant]

guy is free to say what he wants. what's happening to him are consequences of him saying what he wants to say. he is still free to speak about his belief that satanism is connected to the homosexual agenda - nobody has taken that freedom away from him.

two typa freedon aff speech- negative ann positive freedom ting. positive freedom aff speech iss dat deer iss rules fe protect freedom aff speech ann dat deer iss consquences of sayinn wat a person sey. iff deer iss rules fe regulate freedom aff speech so peeps can sey wat dem waan widdout fear aff losinn dem lives den deer need fe be remedies wear homosexuals can be sued fe targittinn peeps woo appose homosexualitee

homosexual iss eugenic ting dem pushinn pon blakks fe limit blakk population growth

[mountaingal]

two typa freedon aff speech- negative ann positive freedom ting. positive freedom aff speech iss dat deer iss rules fe protect freedom aff speech ann dat deer iss consquences of sayinn wat a person sey. iff deer iss rules fe regulate freedom aff speech so peeps can sey wat dem waan widdout fear aff losinn dem lives den deer need fe be remedies wear homosexuals can be sued fe targittinn peeps woo appose homosexualitee

homosexual iss eugenic ting dem pushinn pon blakks fe limit blakk population growth

the topic of this thread is about whether freedom of speech is dead. short answer - no. all that other stuff you're discussing is tangential.

[Tropicana]

Blu looks like de chi-chi peopled dem waan determine who gets to work and who gets to eat. Unflippin believable!!

They have hijacked the legislation that was intended to protect the rights of visible minorities and twisted it to forward their own agenda that they want to ram down everyone's throat. This is so ridiculous.

[Tropicana]

This is from the Gleaner a few days ago:

Michael Abrahams: Are Gay-Rights Activists The New Schoolyard Bullies?

A few weeks ago, I wrote an article titled ‘The Gay Thing’, in which I discussed the negative attitudes towards gays in Jamaica. At that time, the bigots, religious zealots and hypocrites came out in droves, with one of them stating that I, along with the gays, should be stoned to death "like in the days of the Bible".

I had planned to continue the discussion the following week, with an exploration of the other side of the gay-rights issue, the activists and the advocates, but did not want to appear to be attempting to appease the hatemongers who spewed venom in response to the original column. But no fair and balanced discourse on the issue would be complete without addressing the behaviour of some of the activists in the movement and the manner in which they deal with those who are not aligned with their agenda.

I am very liberal regarding my views on gay rights. I reject discrimination against members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community, think that the buggery law should be repealed, and have no issue with gay marriage. Let's face it: Heterosexuals have made enough of a mess of marriage, with divorce, separation, adultery, outside children and ‘jackets’ being more routine than exception.

But just as I have a right to express my opinion, so do others whose views oppose mine, especially if they are expressed rationally and respectfully. And herein lies the problem. As far as some gay activists are concerned, anyone who disagrees with their agenda is a homophobe, their utterances are hate speech, and steps are then made to sabotage their careers or businesses. So, if someone simply says that they believe that the term ‘marriage’ should only be used to describe heterosexual unions, or that they think that homosexuality is unnatural, they are targeted.

I have been writing poetry, comedy and sharing material dealing with politics, religion and other social issues on Facebook for several years without incident. I have even posted comedy sketches where I have lampooned some of our political leaders and have never received any flak. The first time that I was ever dissed on Facebook, however, was after I shared a poem that I wrote titled ‘Straight Rights’, in which I spoke about the incident with Queen Ifrica at the Grand Gala where she endorsed heterosexuality and asked that the buggery law not be repealed.
I stated that I thought that that was not the time or place to make such statements, but also remarked that attempting to get her work permit revoked was unfair and that some of the activists are the new bullies in the schoolyard. One of my Facebook ‘friends’ then became very unfriendly and disrespectful, insulting and berating me on my wall. Later, when I posted the poem on another wall, I was inboxed by another ‘friend’ who asked me why I posted the poem again, and was obviously not pleased about it.

It appears that freedom of speech is a freedom that some of these activists only champion for themselves, as they attempt to punish and destroy critics and dissenters. The irony is that this type of intolerant behaviour alienates potential allies. Many heterosexuals are sympathetic to the cause but at the same time feel intimidated. People cannot be expected to change their attitudes overnight, and beating them over their heads with big sticks will only cause resentment and more resistance.

My own tolerance took decades to develop, beginning with a discussion with a relative of mine who I discovered was gay when I was a teenager, and continuing with interactions with lesbian patients of mine and their partners, some of whom have been harassed and have had their lives threatened. It took me a long time to not cringe at the sight of two men holding hands, and ten years ago I would not even have entertained the thought of gay marriage.

So widespread tolerance and acceptance will not occur with any urgency. Certainly, remarks that encourage violence against, and marginalisation of, LGBT persons are to be condemned, but tolerance needs to be exercised on both sides.

Finally someone with sense.

http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20140331/cleisure/cleisure2.html

[Peasie]

Yes, finally.

A few weeks ago, I wrote an article titled ‘The Gay Thing’, in which I discussed the negative attitudes towards gays in Jamaica. At that time, the bigots, religious zealots and hypocrites came out in droves, with one of them stating that I, along with the gays, should be stoned to death "like in the days of the Bible".

I had planned to continue the discussion the following week, with an exploration of the other side of the gay-rights issue, the activists and the advocates, but did not want to appear to be attempting to appease the hatemongers who spewed venom in response to the original column. But no fair and balanced discourse on the issue would be complete without addressing the behaviour of some of the activists in the movement and the manner in which they deal with those who are not aligned with their agenda.

I am very liberal regarding my views on gay rights. I reject discrimination against members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community, think that the buggery law should be repealed, and have no issue with gay marriage. Let's face it: Heterosexuals have made enough of a mess of marriage, with divorce, separation, adultery, outside children and ‘jackets’ being more routine than exception.

But just as I have a right to express my opinion, so do others whose views oppose mine, especially if they are expressed rationally and respectfully. And herein lies the problem. As far as some gay activists are concerned, anyone who disagrees with their agenda is a homophobe, their utterances are hate speech, and steps are then made to sabotage their careers or businesses. So, if someone simply says that they believe that the term ‘marriage’ should only be used to describe heterosexual unions, or that they think that homosexuality is unnatural, they are targeted.

I have been writing poetry, comedy and sharing material dealing with politics, religion and other social issues on Facebook for several years without incident. I have even posted comedy sketches where I have lampooned some of our political leaders and have never received any flak. The first time that I was ever dissed on Facebook, however, was after I shared a poem that I wrote titled ‘Straight Rights’, in which I spoke about the incident with Queen Ifrica at the Grand Gala where she endorsed heterosexuality and asked that the buggery law not be repealed.
I stated that I thought that that was not the time or place to make such statements, but also remarked that attempting to get her work permit revoked was unfair and that some of the activists are the new bullies in the schoolyard. One of my Facebook ‘friends’ then became very unfriendly and disrespectful, insulting and berating me on my wall. Later, when I posted the poem on another wall, I was inboxed by another ‘friend’ who asked me why I posted the poem again, and was obviously not pleased about it.

It appears that freedom of speech is a freedom that some of these activists only champion for themselves, as they attempt to punish and destroy critics and dissenters. The irony is that this type of intolerant behaviour alienates potential allies. Many heterosexuals are sympathetic to the cause but at the same time feel intimidated. People cannot be expected to change their attitudes overnight, and beating them over their heads with big sticks will only cause resentment and more resistance.

My own tolerance took decades to develop, beginning with a discussion with a relative of mine who I discovered was gay when I was a teenager, and continuing with interactions with lesbian patients of mine and their partners, some of whom have been harassed and have had their lives threatened. It took me a long time to not cringe at the sight of two men holding hands, and ten years ago I would not even have entertained the thought of gay marriage.

So widespread tolerance and acceptance will not occur with any urgency. Certainly, remarks that encourage violence against, and marginalisation of, LGBT persons are to be condemned, but tolerance needs to be exercised on both sides.

[mountaingal]

mi did see that part enuh pz, but mek ie pass, all like how mi deh pon ignore an ting.... thanks for highlighting.

[blugiant]

the topic of this thread is about whether freedom of speech is dead. short answer - no. all that other stuff you're discussing is tangential.

weak argument mg.

yuh narmallee cum bettar dan dat

wat diss iss bout iss oww homosexuals ann homophiles ar censarinn peeps woo bunn fiyah pon peeps woo apposed homosexualite. censorship iss unconstitutional inn da us butt cah enuff funnee peeps backkinn itt dem ignorinn da threat dat posed to free speech. dem cum fe certain groups aff peeps mii kipt qwiet butt wen dem cum fe mii no wan else was arrund

now dem goinn aftah religion ann religious peeps dat bunn fiyah pon homosexualitee

[Peasie]

There is none so blind as those who will not see.