Gay Firefox developers boycott Mozilla to protest CEO hire

common wrong argument: This is a violation of Eich's freedom of speech.

subtly wrong rebuttal: The First Amendment protects you against government infringement of free speech (including campaign donations, since money is "speech"), but it doesn't protect you against the social consequences of that speech.

While true on its surface, the reason this rebuttal is subtly wrong is that it ignores a critical distinction, which is that, as a "protected class", gays are privileged under the law. This means that you are especially vulnerable to being sued for violating their rights. As Mencius Moldbug put it in the context of McCarthyism and the anti-Communist Red Scare [1]:

"[M]ost of what we call 'McCarthyism' was a matter of 'social consequences.' Besides, the social consequences work for one and only one reason: there's an iron fist in the velvet glove. Being sued for disrespecting a privileged class—excuse me, a protected class—is not in any way a social consequence, but rather a political one."

To appreciate the asymmetry, imagine a counterfactual reality in which Eich donated against of Prop. 8 instead of for it. In this context, suppose he made a comment in the workplace about his support for gay marriage. Suppose further that some Mozilla employees, who happened to vigorously oppose gay marriage, sued on the grounds of a "hostile working environment". Such a lawsuit would have no chance of success. In contrast, in the real reality we actually live in, Eich will now have to monitor his workplace speech very carefully—one wrong word about gay marriage could be all it takes to precipitate a lawsuit against him and the Mozilla Foundation. It would be unwise to underestimate the chances of such a suit's success.

In the counterfactual universe, a pro–gay marriage Eich might still face a boycott or protests, but they would be incomparably weaker because non-gays are not a protected class. Whereas in real reality, the "social consequences" of a boycott are supported by the full power of the US Federal Government. For obvious reasons, such boycotts have a habit of succeeding.

[1]: [Technology, communism, and the Brown Scare](http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2013/09/technol...)

Honest political disagreement are about the hows of accomplishing the humanity's goals of equal liberty and justice for all. Anti-marriage-equality advocates are about the outcome of said equal liberty and justice; that is, preventing it for LGBT people and treating them as second-class citizens.

> One of those things, I guess, can't tolerate the intolerant =).

That's not accurate. I can tolerate the intolerant. I'm not asking for their civil liberties to be taken away like Prop 8 attempted to take away from LGBT people.

All I'm stating that I'm not going to be as supportive and praise of Mozilla and Firefox as I used to be. Don't get me wrong, Mozilla is still a great organization made up of wonderful people, and the whole organization shouldn't be ruined by the actions of one member. But that this one person now is the head of the organization tarnished it significantly.