Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Astonishing Conservative Hypocrisy Over Mozilla and the First Amendment
By Mark Joseph SternA repeated cry in conservative and libertarian circles over anti-gay Mozilla CEO Brendan Eichs resignation is that the company is somehow trampling Eichs free speech rights. Eich, as youve surely heard, donated $1,000 in 2008 to Californias Proposition 8 campaign, which successfully outlawed gay marriage in that state before getting shot down by the courts. Its true that, because of this donation, Mozillas leaders and board members pressured Eich to resign. But its absurd and hypocritical to claim that this pressure constituted an infringement of Eichs legal rights.
Lets start with the obvious: It is literally impossible for Mozilla to violate Eichs constitutional freedom of speech. At the risk of sounding pedantic, the First Amendment applies exclusively to state actors, like Congress or state legislatures, so a private corporation like Mozilla simply cannot infringe upon an employees free speech rights, even if it wanted to. There is no wiggle room around this point. It is a basic constitutional fact.
But I can already hear the inevitable retort: Sure, Mozilla wasnt literally trampling on Eichs First Amendment rights, but it was violating the broader principles of free speech and free association. This argument is strikingly one-sided and opportunistic. Corporations like Mozilla, for better or worse, are also endowed with significant rights of free speech and free associationfor instance, the freedom of Mozillas board and leadership to condemn Eichs anti-gay actions. And make no mistake: Freedom of association includes the freedom of exclusion, particularly the freedom to exclude from your private organization an individual whose conduct is inconsistent with your values. Mozillas decision to seek Eichs resignation implicates the same First Amendment principles that famously allow the Boy Scouts to exclude gay troop leaders.
Oddly, however, I dont see defenders of Eich also criticizing the Boy Scouts for excluding gay men because the organization disagrees with their conduct and beliefs. Nor do I even see conservatives taking Mozillas rights as a private corporation seriouslya predictable hypocrisy made especially obnoxious in light of last weeks widespread right-wing praise of the corporate plaintiffs claim in Hobby Lobby. This is the conservative double standard in the realm of corporate rights: When the corporation supports a right-wing pet projectsay, denying women reproductive careconservatives pen encomia to the First Amendments corporate protections. But when a corporation dares to support a progressive cause like gay rights, conservatives cry foul at its alleged censorship of individual views.
more
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/04/04/mozilla_s_anti_gay_ceo_and_conservative_first_amendment_hypocrisy.html?
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
3 replies, 955 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (3)
ReplyReply to this post
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Astonishing Conservative Hypocrisy Over Mozilla and the First Amendment (Original Post)
DonViejo
Apr 2014
OP
You can recognize the anti-gay bigots. They're always SO CONCERNED about protecting the free speech
blkmusclmachine
Apr 2014
#2
11 Bravo
(23,928 posts)1. There is no one on the planet who understands LESS about the 1st Amendment ...
then the Teabaggers and conservatives who squawk so incessantly whenever one of their own is held to answer for their dumb-ass remarks by a NON-STATE agency. Fucking morons.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)2. You can recognize the anti-gay bigots. They're always SO CONCERNED about protecting the free speech
of anyone they agree with. But the free speech of everybody else, though? Pffft...
alp227
(32,075 posts)3. Glad somebody posted on this. Found this astonishingly STUPID article:
Mozilla CEO resignation raises free-speech issues - the actual title by the Associated Press.
A reality-based, rational news organization would DEBUNK the fallacy-based "FIRSTAMENDMENTFREESPEECHFREESPEECH" whining about Brendan Eich's "rights being violated" by Mozilla rather than play into the hands of the wrong wing.
Furthermore, it seems that homophobia is "the last acceptable bigotry" for people desperate to hold on to their politically incorrect views.
If Eich was a Holocaust denier, donated to NAMBLA, was a member of the Nation of Islam, once went to a speech by a New Black Panther leader, or was associated with some other taboo cause like Communism, how many of these right wingers would defend the guy's FREESPEECHFREESPEECH?
The bottom line is: Eich has the First Amendment right to say whatever the fuck he wants. He has no Constitutional right to be accepted in polite society. End of the fucking story.
A reality-based, rational news organization would DEBUNK the fallacy-based "FIRSTAMENDMENTFREESPEECHFREESPEECH" whining about Brendan Eich's "rights being violated" by Mozilla rather than play into the hands of the wrong wing.
Furthermore, it seems that homophobia is "the last acceptable bigotry" for people desperate to hold on to their politically incorrect views.
If Eich was a Holocaust denier, donated to NAMBLA, was a member of the Nation of Islam, once went to a speech by a New Black Panther leader, or was associated with some other taboo cause like Communism, how many of these right wingers would defend the guy's FREESPEECHFREESPEECH?
The bottom line is: Eich has the First Amendment right to say whatever the fuck he wants. He has no Constitutional right to be accepted in polite society. End of the fucking story.