Mozilla To Fire Employee Suspected Of Posting Hate Speech

Status
Not open for further replies.

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
It looks like someone at Mozilla might be in hot water for making a series of statements on Reddit that the CEO of Mozilla has deemed hate speech.

It's been brought to our attention that there's been anonymous postings to Reddit under the handle aoiyama that crossed a line from criticism to hate speech. There's a lot to suggest that they're a Mozillian [an employee]. Specifically, when I'm talking about crossing the line from criticism to hate speech.
 
I wonder what they'll do if the poster turns out to be female?

Just because you are a member of a group, it doesn't invalidate inappropriate comments you make about that group ... most companies have codes of conduct that are quite specific about what is allowed and what is not ... violate those codes at your peril :cool:
 
I wonder what they'll do if the poster turns out to be female?

Does it matter? The problem isn't actually hate speech, but this person decided it was a good idea to single out a former employee by name with some pretty disgusting comments *on a public forum*. Pretty sure every company has clauses about posting this kind of stuff, and yes, you do deserve to be fired because it makes Mozilla look like they accept this stuff.

If you want to believe crap like this, fine, no need to spew it on the Internet to be easily visible to others.
 
You're all ignoring the operative word.

"Suspected of"

So. They don't necessarily have proof this person did it. But they're going to fire him "just in case".

Precrime anyone?
 
How in the flying fuck is that 'hate speech' ?! I'm at a loss for words. Everything is offensive these days.
 
I don't get it, is there something wrong with what he/she said? Given the direction Mozilla has been going lately it seemed appropriate.
 
I don't get it, is there something wrong with what he/she said? Given the direction Mozilla has been going lately it seemed appropriate.

Don't you know? The truth is offensive these days. And facts. Facts are totally sexist, you know.
 
I don't get it, is there something wrong with what he/she said? Given the direction Mozilla has been going lately it seemed appropriate.

What you can say in private about your company and what you can say publicly about your company are often two different things ... and the internet is very very public ;)
 
You're all ignoring the operative word.

"Suspected of"

So. They don't necessarily have proof this person did it. But they're going to fire him "just in case".

Precrime anyone?

Depends on the company and the rules of the State the employee is in ... my last employer had "employment at will" clauses in the employee contracts and operated in "right to work" States ... that CEO once fired an employee for wearing jeans on a day other than Friday ... they could generally fire you for any reason at any time with little to no notice
 
Yep, it isn't hate speech at all. Beard is just getting his panties in a bunch.
 
I don't get it, is there something wrong with what he/she said? Given the direction Mozilla has been going lately it seemed appropriate.

Yeah, if there was nothing wrong with this then why did this person mention someone else BY NAME and while hiding their own? This is textbook "You're fired" pretty much anywhere.
 
How in the flying fuck is that 'hate speech' ?! I'm at a loss for words. Everything is offensive these days.

"When I talk about crossing the line from criticism to hate speech, I'm talking about when you start saying 'someone's kind doesn't belong here, and we'll all be happy when they're gone.'"

Beard said the remarks indicated a discomfort with diversity that he would not tolerate. It's an issue that is particularly sensitive for Mozilla, whose previous CEO resigned last year amid outrage he had donated to groups that oppose gay marriage. "If that's not actually hate speech, it's pretty damn close," Beard said of the Reddit comments. "We are not going to walk that line as Mozilla. So if and when we identify who this person is, if they are an employee, they will be fired. And regardless, either way, they are not welcome to continue to participate in the Mozilla project. It is not who we are."

So it may not actually be hate speech, but we're going to call it hate speech so everybody's on-board with us firing this person. This person may have a really good point, but they said it in a mean way, so we have to fire them.
 
1388887661063.jpg
 
No, your freedoms end when you start violating conditions of employment. What company in their right mind is going to put up with employees insulting each other over social media?
 
I wish people could just go back to being offended without having to resort to publicly flaying the offender. The guy said something stupid. Pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and move on with life. Be the mature one in these situations...

Due to extreme polarization and the constant demonizing of opposing viewpoints, it is becoming nearly impossible to have a rational discussion about most topics with a majority of people.
 
"Opinions not my own will be deemed hate speech and punished." -Some "Progressive" Asshole
 
You're all ignoring the operative word.

"Suspected of"

So. They don't necessarily have proof this person did it. But they're going to fire him "just in case".

Precrime anyone?

Pre-crime is a reliable friend of the regressive statist, you know like the kid that parade themselves as inclusive progressives? They have trampled the notion of Liberalism. The enlightenment is dead as dead can be.
 
Isn't it sorta "hate speech" to attribute "hate" and "intolerance" to someone who never once misbehaved professionally or publicly and whose only alleged misdeed was that he once gave a political donation to a group that believes in a traditional definition of marriage (just like nearly everyone did a decade or so ago. . . including our current President and the current front-runner during the last election)?

P.S. I support gay marriage. But what happened to the prior Mozilla CEO was the real hate crime. The real "hate" is coming from those who refuse to brook any dissent and see everyone who disagrees with them as downright evil.
 
Like others have pointed out, this has nothing to do with hate speech. It has everything to do with taking an internal company dispute out into the open, which disparages the company's public image. "Hate speech" just sounds better, and is easier to justify, then the preceding sentence. MANY companies have similar rules (which usually say something to the affect that such disputes should be taken to the company H.R. department or some such, where it will cheerfully ignored). They, largely, don't give a crap about what you post on social media UNLESS it hurts the company's public image.
 
No, your freedoms end when you start violating conditions of employment. What company in their right mind is going to put up with employees insulting each other over social media?

Actually your freedom doesn't "end" when you start violating conditions of employment. You are absolutely free to do so. You just have to be willing to accept that there are repercussions to doing so. Free speech means you have the right to say whatever you want, however you want, wherever you want but it doesn't protect you from the repercussions of doing so (unless those repercussions are being brought about by an offended government).
 
While I love the victim complex the internet boy has developed they also say "If this person is an employee" they don't even know who it was.

The whole thing stinks of more internet "I'm being victimised when you stop me from attacking you, boohoo!" bullshit. I'm betting the poster was just another delicate little soul from internet land who wishes to be oppressed by at least somebody.

If this person actually works at Mozilla, he or she should be mopping floors from now on. To go to an anonymous forum and attack your former co-workers is the height of cowardice. It reeks of a person who completely failed at adulthood.
 
If you goto work acting and dressing like a dirty slob imo it is public now and can be said in public.
 
Remember the good old days when someone would read something offensive and think, "boy what an asshole. Now on with my life". Nowadays if something offends you then the person that did it has to be ruined, publicly humiliated and possibly sued into the stone age. Man what a bunch of pussies we've become.
 
Yeah I read the posts.

Where it the hate speech? I just see somebody entirely pissed at double standards.

And Beard should join 2015 that most feminists are insanely sexist, and there is very few true feminists left, and these are just people who hide behind feminism to bash on men.
 
Actually your freedom doesn't "end" when you start violating conditions of employment. You are absolutely free to do so. You just have to be willing to accept that there are repercussions to doing so. Free speech means you have the right to say whatever you want, however you want, wherever you want but it doesn't protect you from the repercussions of doing so (unless those repercussions are being brought about by an offended government).

I could not agree more.;)
 
Remember the good old days when someone would read something offensive and think, "boy what an asshole. Now on with my life". Nowadays if something offends you then the person that did it has to be ruined, publicly humiliated and possibly sued into the stone age. Man what a bunch of pussies we've become.
And remember when there was no Twitter where that "something" becomes very public?
I don't disagree that we have become PC pussies, but you also have to be dumb to put your drivel out in the open like that. It's predictable that HR will pick you off.
 
Don't you know? The truth is offensive these days. And facts. Facts are totally sexist, you know.

Here, let's give it a litmus test:

"When she and the rest of her blue-haired nose-pierced asshole feminists are gone, the tech industry will breathe a sigh of relief."

If they said:

When she and the rest of her JEW FRIENDS are gone, the tech industry will breathe a sigh of relief."

Still sounds hatey to me
 
I wonder what they'll do if the poster turns out to be female?
The CEO didn't claim punishment would only go to male employee, if the poster is even a Mozilla employee, which is kind of funny since this will trigger butthurt/persecution delusion by the usual off their meds crowd here *as if the CEO actually did say this would punishment only apply to a male employee*. :D
 
Here, let's give it a litmus test:

"When she and the rest of her blue-haired nose-pierced asshole feminists are gone, the tech industry will breathe a sigh of relief."

If they said:

When she and the rest of her JEW FRIENDS are gone, the tech industry will breathe a sigh of relief."

Still sounds hatey to me

Exactly ... as soon as you start to create groups of people and attributing behaviors to all in the group you are heading straight into Hate Speech territory ... there is a big difference between what she said and a much safer and a more appropriate sentiment "she was an ineffective leader/manager/engineer and there are many that will be happy to see her go" ... since she chose to lump all people like her together and attribute the joy at her departure to another group that is Hate Speech 101 (and Advanced Stupid Speech for the soon to be Unemployed) :cool:
 
Here, let's give it a litmus test:

"When she and the rest of her blue-haired nose-pierced asshole feminists are gone, the tech industry will breathe a sigh of relief."

If they said:

When she and the rest of her JEW FRIENDS are gone, the tech industry will breathe a sigh of relief."

Still sounds hatey to me

But the person didn't say that. He/She didn't describe a specific race, gender, orientation, or any other protected class. Apples and Oranges.

As others have said about the blue hair thing:

Aposematism (from Greek ἀπό apo away, σ̑ημα sema sign, coined by Edward Bagnall Poulton), perhaps most commonly known in the context of warning coloration, describes a family of antipredator adaptations where a warning signal is associated with the unprofitability of a prey item to potential predators.
 
But the person didn't say that. He/She didn't describe a specific race, gender, orientation, or any other protected class. Apples and Oranges.

As others have said about the blue hair thing:

The issue of a protected class would only matter in a criminal case. This definitely fits the pattern of hate speech and whether it is or isn't has nothing to do with the fact that saying this publically is no doubt violates the company's employment policy.

This is a non-story that people are trying to make more of than it is because some no doubt agree with the sentiment. But that's not why this person would be fired if they are an employee. No company worth half a damn is going to tolerate its employees hurling out public insults against not only other employees but anyone else.
 
Hate speech, aka secular blasphemy. Just as we have no use for blasphemy laws, we should have no use for hate speech laws. This is ridiculous.
 
Hate speech, aka secular blasphemy. Just as we have no use for blasphemy laws, we should have no use for hate speech laws. This is ridiculous.
Much as I find the witch-hunting distasteful, fairness compells me to point out that there are no "laws" in play here. This is a private employer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top