Mozilla To Fire Employee Suspected Of Posting Hate Speech

Status
Not open for further replies.
kohl said:
"Hate speech". The new term for fascist censorship.
Click to expand...

How is this censorship? If you are unemployed you can pretty much say and do what you wish with no restrictions except those of libel and slander. If you are employed then your employer can put any number of restrictions on what you can say and do (and remain employed). However, you still have the right to say and do them ... you will just be looking for a new job afterwards ... hate speech, or its equivalent, is just one of many varieties of speech that a company might find non-conducive to a stable workplace and your continued participation in it :cool:
 
"Hate speech" = Thought Crime

We need to win the war on Thought.
 
Hurin said:
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.
Click to expand...

Opening one's big mouth and then paying the consequences isn't a witch hunt.
 
Hurin said:
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.
Click to expand...

I did not claim any laws were in play. I compared behavior.
 
The problem the CEO can be sued for slander if he call the comments hate speech. I'd say he would be in more trouble for slander.
 
The CEO will basically will be blacklisting who ever made the comments. I feel a big ass lawsuit coming into play.
The employee might be protected under whistle protection laws for bring up the hostile work environment.
 
CRaschNet said:
The CEO will basically will be blacklisting who ever made the comments. I feel a big ass lawsuit coming into play.
The employee might be protected under whistle protection laws for bring up the hostile work environment.
Click to expand...

LOL! When did whistle protection laws cover personal insults?
 
heatlesssun said:
Opening one's big mouth and then paying the consequences isn't a witch hunt.
Click to expand...
You're correct. What happened to Brendan Eich (with whom I disagree politically) was the real witch hunt.

It's a shame they didn't bring this type of anger to bear when they had Mozilla employees calling a fellow employee a hate-monger and demanding his termination merely for making a political donation, years ago, to an entirely mainstream cause (albeit one with which I disagree).
 
CRaschNet said:
The CEO will basically will be blacklisting who ever made the comments. I feel a big ass lawsuit coming into play.
The employee might be protected under whistle protection laws for bring up the hostile work environment.
Click to expand...

What :confused:

Whistle blower laws only protect employees who release information about companies who are violating the law ... not making general complaints about managers or company policy

Hostile work environment rules are very specific in nature ... the behavior has to be something that the average person would find offensive ... it has to be repeated (generally) ... and it has to have been reported through a company's established reporting channels ... hostile work environment has a higher bar of proof than sexual harassment

Disciplining an employee who violates their terms of employment is never considered a hostile work environment and is not a punishable offense unless if violates a labor law
 
Hurin said:
You're correct. What happened to Brendan Eich (with whom I disagree politically) was the real witch hunt.

It's a shame they didn't bring this type of anger to bear when they had Mozilla employees calling a fellow employee a hate-monger and demanding his termination merely for making a political donation, years ago, to an entirely mainstream cause (albeit one with which I disagree).
Click to expand...

Telling people who they can and cannot marry just doesn't work for a big company CEO these days, particularly a tech one. Call it PC, call it whatever, the nature of these issues has always been such that at a certain point what was acceptable and mainstream, like Jim Crow, because the opposite because enough people say enough.
 
Here's a pro tip for all the Fem bots out there -- part of the reason it's hard for you to break into the "boys club" like you've been wanting to do, is because they get offended at stuff exactly like this.

You can't take a joke, you can't take some flak, or roll with it -- why the fuck would anyone want to bring a wet blanket onboard and then pretend to be happy about it? I've worked as IT in office environment, and IT on oil rigs -- if you show up acting like a bitch, you will get treated like a bitch. Sounds pretty fair to me.

Political correctness is fucking up this country, say what you mean and cut all the tip toe bullshit. Assuming this guys work is good -- part of me wishes I owned a bigass company and could offer him a job. Who cares if someone runs his mouth, if the work is good is all that matters.
 
So if you read some of her actual tweets/exit letter, you might find a pattern.

https://storify.com/kissane/christie-s-exit-letter

This one blurb in particular is both funny and really reads like "i fucked up and got drunk at a work party, now I think all alcohol should be banned".

There's the time I raised the issue of alcohol use at company events with our head of HR and got a speech about personal responsibility.
Click to expand...

What a fucking joke this world is.
 
collegeboy69us said:
Here's a pro tip for all the Fem bots out there -- part of the reason it's hard for you to break into the "boys club" like you've been wanting to do, is because they get offended at stuff exactly like this.

You can't take a joke, you can't take some flak, or roll with it -- why the fuck would anyone want to bring a wet blanket onboard and then pretend to be happy about it? I've worked as IT in office environment, and IT on oil rigs -- if you show up acting like a bitch, you will get treated like a bitch. Sounds pretty fair to me.
Click to expand...

It's okay for men to offend women, but not okay for women to offend men? Good to know.
 
lilbabycat said:
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:
Click to expand...

So you say "blue-haired nose-pierced asshole feminists" is not a protected class? Is there a Worldwide Protected Class Conservancy that creates these protected classes? It's not hate unless it's an official recognized protected class?

Maybe that's how Turkey gets past the Armenian genocide thing. "look, all you Armenians have to do is get your protected class license and we'll apologize for murdering you!"
 
"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.'"
Click to expand...

lol, yeah right. tell that to the previous CEO who got pushed out.

Does anyone take these hypocrite SJWs seriously?
 
What have we become when everyone is siding with the juvenile that mouthed off about his company instead of accepting that this isn't acceptable even at many jobs that pay people hourly.
 
jwcalla said:
lol, yeah right. tell that to the previous CEO who got pushed out.

Does anyone take these hypocrite SJWs seriously?
Click to expand...

What does a CEO getting pushed out for political reasons have to with terminating a employee for violating company policy? Does anyone where work for a company that wouldn't fire them for publicly insulting a coworker by name on social media?
 
{NG}Fidel said:
What have we become when everyone is siding with the juvenile that mouthed off about his company instead of accepting that this isn't acceptable even at many jobs that pay people hourly.
Click to expand...

Really, so much ridiculous nonsense in this thread.
 
heatlesssun said:
What does a CEO getting pushed out for political reasons have to with terminating a employee for violating company policy? Does anyone where work for a company that wouldn't fire them for publicly insulting a coworker by name on social media?
Click to expand...

"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.'"
 
jwcalla said:
"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.'"
Click to expand...

Again, what does that have to do with publicly insulting a fellow employee by name? The substance of what was said here isn't the problem, it's that someone dragged another person into a personal argument, by name publicly. Any place I've every worked, race, creed, color or religion you're done working there for that kind of BS drama.
 
Terpfen said:
Eich donated to a ballot measure that won.
Click to expand...

Here's how I look at it personally. If the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had been put on a state ballot in my home state of North Carolina in 1964 where I was born just four years later it probably would have failed. Basic equality, like the kind where people don't have to piss in different public bathrooms based on skin color, didn't come about by tolerating nonsense.
 
kbrickley said:
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:
Click to expand...

So if a certain group of people live in mostly the same area, if that area has characteristics shared with the group living there, we are not allowed to say that piece of property has nicely cut trees since lumberjacks live there?
 
heatlesssun said:
Here's how I look at it personally. If the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had been put on a state ballot in my home state of North Carolina in 1964 where I was born just four years later it probably would have failed. Basic equality, like the kind where people don't have to piss in different public bathrooms based on skin color, didn't come about by tolerating nonsense.
Click to expand...

It's amazing how you're OK with SJWing people out of jobs because you disagree with their politics. The man donated to a ballot measure. You are trying to present yourself as the pro-liberty position, when you are just fine with someone losing his job for having the "wrong" opinion, which is about as anti-liberty as it gets.

Begone.
 
sliverjazz said:
So if a certain group of people live in mostly the same area, if that area has characteristics shared with the group living there, we are not allowed to say that piece of property has nicely cut trees since lumberjacks live there?
Click to expand...

Attributing positive behaviors to a group may be wrong but it is not Hate Speech ... attributing negative behaviors to a group may be both wrong and Hate Speech (depending on how negative the attribution is) ;)

There is a quote in the movie Gettysburg I like, "Well, if you mean the race, I don't really know. This is not a thing to be ashamed of. The thing is, you cannot judge a race. Any man who judges by the group is a pea-wit. You take men one at a time." :cool:
 
Sucks that companies can control what you can and can't do even when off the job. Not that I condone hate speech, but whether or not a person keeps their job should not be based on stuff that is irrelevant to the job itself.
 
Terpfen said:
It's amazing how you're OK with SJWing people out of jobs because you disagree with their politics. The man donated to a ballot measure. You are trying to present yourself as the pro-liberty position, when you are just fine with someone losing his job for having the "wrong" opinion, which is about as anti-liberty as it gets.

Begone.
Click to expand...

LOL! This is just hilarious. If I were to go online and insult a fellow coworker by name and it became known to my management that it was I who had done it, Begone is exactly what would happen. Why some feel the need to conflate this common employment policy with some political agenda is flat out nonsense.

But on the note of SJWing people, well without it having been done on my behalf, you tell me how my life would be now. Yes I believe in liberty, I simply acknowledge that didn't happen for everyone without tons of conflict.
 
Red Squirrel said:
Sucks that companies can control what you can and can't do even when off the job. Not that I condone hate speech, but whether or not a person keeps their job should not be based on stuff that is irrelevant to the job itself.
Click to expand...

When you say something about your company as an employee of that company you represent that company. Period.
 
So the politically correct lemmings running Mozilla are outraged over a possible employee using an expression like "someone's kind doesn't belong here, and we'll all be happy when they're gone." Their solution? To regard people using such language as a kind that doesn't belong here (employed at Mozilla), and to be happy when such a kind of employee is gone.
 
heatlesssun said:
When you say something about your company as an employee of that company you represent that company. Period.
Click to expand...

He spoke anonymously, not as a representative of Mozilla. For all we know he could be an agent provocateur employed by Mozilla's rivals in order to make Mozilla look bad.
 
I work for company X and employee X is a douche. Can you get fired for that? Sure.

But labeling it hate speech? Completely ridiculous.
 
crusty_juggler said:
I work for company X and employee X is a douche. Can you get fired for that? Sure.

But labeling it hate speech? Completely ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Labeling it "Hate Speech" is probably an attempt to pander to folks a little but the bottom line (as many have noted, including you) is that most companies have the right to fire you at any time for any reason ... almost every employee contract will have a clause indicating that employees have no permission to publicly discuss their employer or the employees while they are working at the company ... if they decide to exercise that right without permission then they can be punished, up to and including being fired ... if they were forced to label it hate speech to facilitate the firing then blame the screwed up employment laws in California that don't allow companies to properly manage their employees ;)
 
heatlesssun said:
Again, what does that have to do with publicly insulting a fellow employee by name? The substance of what was said here isn't the problem, it's that someone dragged another person into a personal argument, by name publicly. Any place I've every worked, race, creed, color or religion you're done working there for that kind of BS drama.
Click to expand...

I didn't really comment on whether the person should be kicked out or not, I'm simply speaking to the hypocrisy of this statement:

"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.'"

Because that is exactly what the people in Mozilla did from top to bottom with Eich. And believe me, they sent a strong and very intimidating message: if you take your faith seriously, you don't belong at Mozilla, and you might want to find a new job. Of course the SJWs will wax over the whole thing and try to make a diversion, because they're hypocrites and they lie. They don't have any interest in the principle, just using whatever available means to push their politics. So one day it's a moral imperative to tell people "you don't belong here", and the next day the same tune is classified as "hate speech".

Believe me, I see through all this sh!t, and you should too.
 
kbrickley said:
Labeling it "Hate Speech" is probably an attempt to pander to folks a little but the bottom line (as many have noted, including you) is that most companies have the right to fire you at any time for any reason ... almost every employee contract will have a clause indicating that employees have no permission to publicly discuss their employer or the employees while they are working at the company ... if they decide to exercise that right without permission then they can be punished, up to and including being fired ... if they were forced to label it hate speech to facilitate the firing then blame the screwed up employment laws in California that don't allow companies to properly manage their employees ;)
Click to expand...

For folks that are often complaining about how too sensitive others are it's interesting to see how many here seem to be overly sensitive of the labeling of this tirade. Call it a recipe for a shit cake then because shit like this will get you fired.
 
heatlesssun said:
For folks that are often complaining about how too sensitive others are it's interesting to see how many here seem to be overly sensitive of the labeling of this tirade. Call it a recipe for a shit cake then because shit like this will get you fired.
Click to expand...

Exactly ... it was stupid speech at best (Hate Speech at worst) ... if you want to bad mouth your employer and the employees you should do so after you leave (although even then there could be negative repercussions if your new employers see it and don't like it) ... best solution is complain to your family/friends or bartender/priest (do not post negative comments on Facebook or other social media) :cool:
 
jwcalla said:
Believe me, I see through all this sh!t, and you should too.
Click to expand...

So do you work at a company that permits its employees to insult other employees by name on social media? Turning this situation into anything more than what would be obvious grounds for termination at most any company is odd. It's a completely matter than the politics related to being a company CEO.
 
heatlesssun said:
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?
Click to expand...

Mozilla is done for. Political correctness has ruined it.

Mozilla is no longer about making a good browser but about pushing a liberal democrat agenda. People aren't hired based on their technical expertise but based on what color their skin is and what reproductive organs they have. Good people (Eich) are fired for not agreeing with the group think; meanwhile the idiots they have left on their staff are doing their damnedest to run what remains of the browser into the ground (e.g. getting rid of the ability to have useful addons; copying Chrome at every turn, etc.)
 
heatlesssun said:
Telling people who they can and cannot marry just doesn't work for a big company CEO these days, particularly a tech one. Call it PC, call it whatever, the nature of these issues has always been such that at a certain point what was acceptable and mainstream, like Jim Crow, because the opposite because enough people say enough.
Click to expand...

Do your research. He didn't tell anyone anything.

He donated to a political campaign about gay marriage.

So he offended gays. And since Mozilla is smack-dab dead-center of the San Francisco/San Jose metro area ("alternative lifestyle" central), the wonks at Mozilla panicked and Eich was basically "encouraged" to step down, because nobody else running Mozilla wanted to wade through a bunch of grubby protesters and other SJWs every day.

Because their opinions and their "feelz" are more important than anyone else's and more important than freedom of speech and expression.

Bullshit first to last.
 
Quartz-1 said:
I wonder what they'll do if the poster turns out to be female?
Click to expand...

Reddit would have a new CEO!

It depends on how "progressive" Mozilla is.

Anyway, the right to work states can fire you for anything as long as it isn't against the law, like discriminating against a class of people and such.

And the guy who said someone got fired for wearing jeans on a day other than friday, if it's against the rules, it's something they can fire for... but usually it wouldn't happen unless he's someone who's done stuff before or the guy who fired him was in a bad mood.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top