Yeah, but does OkCupid work without JavaScript on? now THAT would be taking a stance.But he's a nice guy who is sick of your freindzone bullshit and wants a woman who isn't a slut or a feminist.
EDIT: Also, it turns out the OkCupid CEO donated to some pretty shitty things too (http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2014/04/okcupid-ceo-donate-anti-gay-firefox)
Baker, chairwoman of the Mozilla Foundation, of which the Mozilla Corporation is a wholly-owned subsidiary, wrote in the 29 March blog post: "I want to speak clearly on behalf of both the Mozilla Corporation and the Mozilla Foundation: Mozilla supports equality for all, explicitly including LGBT equality and marriage equality."
Eich stressed that Baker's statement applied only to Mozilla as a corporation and foundation, rather than to its broader mission.
“There's a difference here between the company, the foundation, as an employer and an entity, versus the project and community at large, which is not under any constraints to agree on LGBT equality or any other thing that is not central to the mission or the Mozilla manifesto.”
Eich said the reason Mozilla as a community did not take a wider stance on issues such as LGBT marriage was the same as his reason for not explaining his donation: to avoid fragmenting its community. Without a large group of people who disagreed on lots of issues, Firefox would never have happened, he said.
“So far we've been able to bring people together of diverse beliefs including on things like marriage equality,” he said. “We couldn't have done this, we couldn't have done Firefox One. I would've been excluded, someone else would've been excluded because of me – I wouldn't have done that personally, they'd have just left. So imagine a world without Firefox: not good.”
Eich also stressed that Firefox worked globally, including in countries like Indonesia with “different opinions”, and LGBT marriage was “not considered universal human rights yet, and maybe they will be, but that's in the future, right now we're in a world where we have to be global to have effect”. (http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/01/mozilla-ceo-brendan-eich-refuses-to-quit)
I have to wonder how you'd feel if the story was about someone who lost their job for donating money to a pro-gay cause.False equivalency is false. His actions and expressed sentiment while representing a company specifically target a group of people by sexuality for disenfranchisement. Hate speech is not free speech as hate speech goes beyond disagreement into the realm of harm. If a CEO had ties to the KKK and espoused that group's views he or she would be thrown out too because of the bad publicity and loss of image.
But starting a campaign to make someone lose their job over their political views seems frankly fucked up. Even when I strongly disagree with those views.How is this distinct from any given political campaign?
I honestly thought TIM would be the one to start this thread.I will not simply because you suggested it.
If all y'all are fuming over Mozilla, why not try a Free-as-in-Freedom alternative of the same codebase, like Iceweasel (http://sourceforge.net/projects/iw4win/)?
"But I'm not a homophobe! Some of my friends are dirty sodomites that are going to burn in hell!"
I have to wonder how you'd feel if the story was about someone who lost their job for donating money to a pro-gay cause.False equivalency is false. His actions and expressed sentiment while representing a company specifically target a group of people by sexuality for disenfranchisement. Hate speech is not free speech as hate speech goes beyond disagreement into the realm of harm. If a CEO had ties to the KKK and espoused that group's views he or she would be thrown out too because of the bad publicity and loss of image.
But starting a campaign to make someone lose their job over their political views seems frankly fucked up. Even when I strongly disagree with those views.How is this distinct from any given political campaign?
Unless he's been calling for gay people to be killed and I didn't hear about it, I'm pretty sure he's not KKK-equivalent. And frankly, the idea of "harm" as the separator between free speech and hate speech is useless. Any political action will in some way or another harm a group to some extent, even if it is just losing privileges they already have.
How is it analogous? A political campaign generally aims to change some aspect of society in general.You are confusing the means with the effect. A campaign is the means in which a political figure uses to obtain office by demonizing other persons in order to affect change. Nasty tactics can be used in an campaign, eg what you described below.
Targeting a person's employment is direct punishment to an individual for having views you don't like, which leads to a political environment where you're not free to express your views if a sufficiently large number of people disagrees with you strongly enough.He donated money to the AFA, he is not a corporation, and thus it is action not speech. But the best part is that he provided enough rope to hang himself in response to a fellow board member trying to enact damage control:
Baker, chairwoman of the Mozilla Foundation, of which the Mozilla Corporation is a wholly-owned subsidiary, wrote in the 29 March blog post: "I want to speak clearly on behalf of both the Mozilla Corporation and the Mozilla Foundation: Mozilla supports equality for all, explicitly including LGBT equality and marriage equality." Eich stressed that Baker's statement applied only to Mozilla as a corporation and foundation, rather than to its broader mission.
“There's a difference here between the company, the foundation, as an employer and an entity, versus the project and community at large, which is not under any constraints to agree on LGBT equality or any other thing that is not central to the mission or the Mozilla manifesto.”
Oh, won't some body think of the homophobe!Because what is considered acceptable behavior towards him dictates what is considered acceptable behavior towards us by people who think we are the dregs of society (i.e. a loud bunch of dipshits on Tumblr).
Hold on, read that in the voice of an overprotective middle age mother.Oh, won't some body think of the homophobe!Because what is considered acceptable behavior towards him dictates what is considered acceptable behavior towards us by people who think we are the dregs of society (i.e. a loud bunch of dipshits on Tumblr).
Personally, I don't have a problem with being called out or shunned for my actions if somebody feels the need to.
I suppose it is hypocritical. That being said, he donated to a cause that actively sought to deny people's equal rights. A pro-gay person would have donated to a cause that actively sought to give people equal rights.
Unless he's been calling for gay people to be killed and I didn't hear about it, I'm pretty sure he's not KKK-equivalent. And frankly, the idea of "harm" as the separator between free speech and hate speech is useless. Any political action will in some way or another harm a group to some extent, even if it is just losing privileges they already have.
Prove the bolded statement. And do tell why harm can not be used as a separator.
QuoteHow is it analogous? A political campaign generally aims to change some aspect of society in general.You are confusing the means with the effect. A campaign is the means in which a political figure uses to obtain office by demonizing other persons in order to affect change. Nasty tactics can be used in an campaign, eg what you described below.
Targeting a person's employment is direct punishment to an individual for having views you don't like, which leads to a political environment where you're not free to express your views if a sufficiently large number of people disagrees with you strongly enough.He donated money to the AFA, he is not a corporation, and thus it is action not speech.
Sure. And people firing pro-gay supporters will say that they were donating to a cause that was destroying natural institutions and Eich was trying to save traditional marriage.Ok, why the fuck is it that only his free speech is protected? If he gets to donate money to whatever homophobic group he wants I have the same right to deny him money in the form of a boycott.
The problem with thinking that way is that, from the outside, it's indistinguishable from saying "That guy agrees me and has a right to free speech, those other guys disagree with me and their speech is destroying us all". I agree 100% that gay rights is a worthy cause and "protecting traditional marriage" is bullshit. But I can't expect mobs of outraged people to agree with me on what is worthy cause and what isn't in every case, so I'm strongly opposed to a system where mobs of outraged people determines who gets to keep their job.
QuoteSure. And people firing pro-gay supporters will say that they were donating to a cause that was destroying natural institutions and Eich was trying to save traditional marriage.Ok, why the fuck is it that only his free speech is protected? If he gets to donate money to whatever homophobic group he wants I have the same right to deny him money in the form of a boycott.
The problem with thinking that way is that, from the outside, it's indistinguishable from saying "That guy agrees me and has a right to free speech, those other guys disagree with me and their speech is destroying us all". I agree 100% that gay rights is a worthy cause and "protecting traditional marriage" is bullshit. But I can't expect mobs of outraged people to agree with me on what is worthy cause and what isn't in every case, so I'm strongly opposed to a system where mobs of outraged people determines who gets to keep their job.
I suppose it is hypocritical. That being said, he donated to a cause that actively sought to deny people's equal rights. A pro-gay person would have donated to a cause that actively sought to give people equal rights.
Sure. And people firing pro-gay supporters will say that they were donating to a cause that was destroying natural institutions and Eich was trying to save traditional marriage.
The problem with thinking that way is that, from the outside, it's indistinguishable from saying "That guy agrees me and has a right to free speech, those other guys disagree with me and their speech is destroying us all".
Meh, reasonable enough.QuoteSure. And people firing pro-gay supporters will say that they were donating to a cause that was destroying natural institutions and Eich was trying to save traditional marriage.Ok, why the fuck is it that only his free speech is protected? If he gets to donate money to whatever homophobic group he wants I have the same right to deny him money in the form of a boycott.
The problem with thinking that way is that, from the outside, it's indistinguishable from saying "That guy agrees me and has a right to free speech, those other guys disagree with me and their speech is destroying us all". I agree 100% that gay rights is a worthy cause and "protecting traditional marriage" is bullshit. But I can't expect mobs of outraged people to agree with me on what is worthy cause and what isn't in every case, so I'm strongly opposed to a system where mobs of outraged people determines who gets to keep their job.
Everyone's free speech gets protected; I'm not saying boycotting Mozilla should be banned or people should be punished for doing so, I jut think it's the wrong move. I object to Eich's political views and contributions but defend his right to them. Similarly, I object to your boycott but defend your right to do it.
I believe I already said why. "Harm" is ridiculously vague. Is a group harmed by losing their right to marry who they want? Then, is a group harmed by losing their right to impose their values on the rest of the people? Certainly they don't seem happy about it.Do tell how and why harm is so vague that it can not be quantified and qualified by a third party.
a) I don't recall arguing he was a corporation. I don't see how it gets into this in any way.
b) So the distinction here is that he actually donated money. So... he has a right to have anti-gay views, but not to want to change the law to reflect those views? If he had merely said that he doesn't think gays should marry and not given money to a campaign, you'd be right here with me bothered that he lost his job over it?
a) So the distinction here is that he actually donated money. So... he has a right to have anti-gayblack views, but not to want to change the law to reflect those views? If he had merely said that he doesn't think gays should marry and not given money to a campaign, you'd be right here with me bothered that he lost his job over it?
More fun to read it in Clint Eastwood's voice...Hold on, read that in the voice of an overprotective middle age mother.Oh, won't some body think of the homophobe!Because what is considered acceptable behavior towards him dictates what is considered acceptable behavior towards us by people who think we are the dregs of society (i.e. a loud bunch of dipshits on Tumblr).
Personally, I don't have a problem with being called out or shunned for my actions if somebody feels the need to.
I believe I already said why. "Harm" is ridiculously vague. Is a group harmed by losing their right to marry who they want? Then, is a group harmed by losing their right to impose their values on the rest of the people? Certainly they don't seem happy about it.Do tell how and why harm is so vague that it can not be quantified and qualified by a third party.
a) I don't recall arguing he was a corporation. I don't see how it gets into this in any way.
b) So the distinction here is that he actually donated money. So... he has a right to have anti-gay views, but not to want to change the law to reflect those views? If he had merely said that he doesn't think gays should marry and not given money to a campaign, you'd be right here with me bothered that he lost his job over it?
His donation to the AFA is not speech, it is action not sentiment. If he was a corporation it would be speech. This brings me to b.
It is common knowledge that the AFA is a hate group who specifically targets people based upon an inherit characteristic, sexuality in this case. The comparison to the KKK is quite apt and is enough to give déjà vu to the inter racial marriage issue from decades ago.
There is something very halarious about that last question though. Even if he did not donate money he still would have lost his position because as CEO he publically represents Mozilla. By spouting wargarble he demonizes everybody involved and thus is deemed a PR liability to be replaced with another publicized figure by the board. The donations and further interviews only dig himself deeper. Folks, this is called damage control.
Your attempt to shift the burden of proof is bad and you should feel bad. So I will repeat, how and why harm is so vague that it cannot be quantified and qualified by a third party?Do tell me of any third party that has quantified and qualified harm in a way that has widespread agreement.I believe I already said why. "Harm" is ridiculously vague. Is a group harmed by losing their right to marry who they want? Then, is a group harmed by losing their right to impose their values on the rest of the people? Certainly they don't seem happy about it.Do tell how and why harm is so vague that it can not be quantified and qualified by a third party.
He donated to the Proposition 8 campaign, not the AFA. Unless you are arguing that makes him support everything the AFA says, by association?You first sentence implies that the AFA received no financial support due to a political means from Yes on Prop 8.
So that "action not speech" point you brought up above is irrelevant.And this is how I know you did not look into this matter. The reason why he became a PR liability was not the protests and boycotts, that rabble were aftershocks. The listing of Mozilla as a supporter of Yes on Prop 8 by California law was not the starting cause. His donations were known since 2008. The hemorrhaging of developers and staff from Mozilla were not the cause either. The reason why he became a PR liability is because his discrimination against a group of people by their inherent characteristic cannot be reconciled with his position as CEO.
And the whole PR thing is precisely my point. What becomes a PR liability can be just about anything, because it depends on whether your actions are popular or impopular enough (not long ago, Eich's views would have been in the majority). Normalising and justifying a process where it's ok to do anything to whoever is in the losing side is not a positive.
Do tell me of any third party that has quantified and qualified harm in a way that has widespread agreement.Your attempt to shift the burden of proof is bad and you should feel bad. So I will repeat, how and why harm is so vague that it cannot be quantified and qualified by a third party?
He donated to the Proposition 8 campaign, not the AFA. Unless you are arguing that makes him support everything the AFA says, by association?You first sentence implies that the AFA received no financial support due to a political means from Yes on Prop 8.
You second sentence if flat out disingenuous as it attempts to distract from the fact that the AFA outright supports discrimination against a group of people by their common, inherent characteristic (sexuality in this case). Their sentiment and actions match his sentiment and actions by intent.
So that "action not speech" point you brought up above is irrelevant.And this is how I know you did not look into this matter. The reason why he became a PR liability was not the protests and boycotts, that rabble were aftershocks. The listing of Mozilla as a supporter of Yes on Prop 8 by California law was not the starting cause. His donations were known since 2008. The hemorrhaging of developers and staff from Mozilla were not the cause either. The reason why he became a PR liability is because his discrimination against a group of people by their inherent characteristic cannot be reconciled with his position as CEO.
And the whole PR thing is precisely my point. What becomes a PR liability can be just about anything, because it depends on whether your actions are popular or impopular enough (not long ago, Eich's views would have been in the majority). Normalising and justifying a process where it's ok to do anything to whoever is in the losing side is not a positive.
I will take that as a tacit admission that you do not know of anyone that has in fact done so, which is at least some evidence right there.Look at all those words and false equivalence. You willfully ignore two main qualifiers, intent and inherent characteristic. Hate speech is not accidental, it is intentionally crafted to target a group of people based upon an inherent characteristic. How quickly Group Libel and its history has been forgotten.
Harm can be used to mean anything that negatively affects a person to any extent. If you call someone fat, or tell them you believe their loved ones are not in heaven, or tell them you pretended to be their friend to win a bet and you secretly never liked thgem, it can cause emotional distress, which is a form of harm. Unless you want to argue that all of the above should not be considered free speech, you cannot use "harm" as the separator between free speech and hate speech without some further specification as to what kind and degree of harm.
And while I attempt to distract from the AFA who I never defended, you attempt to distract from Eich's actual views by grouping him with the AFA.Both willfully undertook finical and political action in support of the same cause as part of the same political initiative. Discrimination against a group of people by their common, inherent characteristic (sexuality in this case). Like it or not the AFA benefits from his contribution.
The way people responded to his anti-gay views is an inherent part of him becoming a PR liability. Unless Mozilla actually discriminated against LGBT people as a result of his position as CEO, then the only problem is that people don't like his views (with good reason) and think he should be fired over them (not with good reason). Show me an example of that, and I'll freely admit I was misinformed and shut up.Board members such as John Lilly GTFO and did not call for his resignation afterward because they had the foresight to realize this was going to be a disaster. Ms. Baker and Mr. Hoffman tried to keep him in Mozilla too. (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/05/technology/personality-and-change-inflamed-crisis-at-mozilla.html?_r=0)
Look at all those words and false equivalence.
I will take that as a tacit admission that you do not know of anyone that has in fact done so, which is at least some evidence right there.Look at all those words and false equivalence. You willfully ignore two main qualifiers, intent and inherent characteristic. Hate speech is not accidental, it is intentionally crafted to target a group of people based upon an inherent characteristic. How quickly Group Libel and its history has been forgotten.
Harm can be used to mean anything that negatively affects a person to any extent. If you call someone fat, or tell them you believe their loved ones are not in heaven, or tell them you pretended to be their friend to win a bet and you secretly never liked thgem, it can cause emotional distress, which is a form of harm. Unless you want to argue that all of the above should not be considered free speech, you cannot use "harm" as the separator between free speech and hate speech without some further specification as to what kind and degree of harm.
Let’s get to the false equivalence. Tell me how are: BMI, religious beliefs and interpersonal issues equivocal to sexuality?
And while I attempt to distract from the AFA who I never defended, you attempt to distract from Eich's actual views by grouping him with the AFA.Both willfully undertook finical and political action in support of the same cause as part of the same political initiative. Discrimination against a group of people by their common, inherent characteristic (sexuality in this case). Like it or not the AFA benefits from his contribution.
The way people responded to his anti-gay views is an inherent part of him becoming a PR liability. Unless Mozilla actually discriminated against LGBT people as a result of his position as CEO, then the only problem is that people don't like his views (with good reason) and think he should be fired over them (not with good reason). Show me an example of that, and I'll freely admit I was misinformed and shut up.Board members such as John Lilly GTFO and did not call for his resignation afterward because they had the foresight to realize this was going to be a disaster. Ms. Baker and Mr. Hoffman tried to keep him in Mozilla too. (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/05/technology/personality-and-change-inflamed-crisis-at-mozilla.html?_r=0)
I did not say Eich's speech wasn't hate speech because it was analogous to any of the examples above. I said that since speech that is clearly free falls under the vague category of harm, you can't use that to claim hate speech. As far as I can tell, you've only used the expression "inherent characteristic" once before, and it's not in the section I was responding to, so of course my quote above doesn't address it.It would seem you do not know what an inherent characteristic is. Two quick examples: sexuality and race. These are characteristics that any given person inherits upon existence. Such are not characteristics that can be changed at will. Let’s go all the way back to the first instance on page two:
It is hate speech not free speech because of intentional targeting based upon inherent characteristic (sexuality in this case). Such is harmful because it seeks to oppress, demean and disenfranchise based upon inherent characteristic (sexuality in this case).He donated to the Proposition 8 campaign, not the AFA. Unless you are arguing that makes him support everything the AFA says, by association?You first sentence implies that the AFA received no financial support due to a political means from Yes on Prop 8.
You second sentence if flat out disingenuous as it attempts to distract from the fact that the AFA outright supports discrimination against a group of people by their common, inherent characteristic (sexuality in this case). Their sentiment and actions match his sentiment and actions by intent.
I'm pretty sure we were having an argument about whether or not harm can be used to separate free speech from hate speech. If you want to go and admit that you cannot and use another definition, I'm fine with that, but don't try to make it like I'm arguing something I'm not.An early example of the legislative framework and history which established limits of speech when a population is targeted based upon inherit characteristic is Beaukarnais v. Illinois. This is a critical part of the history pertaining to how and why Group Libel was created as a legal concept.
Your argument continues to be "Eich had one point of agreement with some awful people, therefore we should treat him as equally awful in everything related to that point of agreement". My response continues to be that the AFA's views matter when we're discussing the AFA, and Eich's when we are discussing Eich.If he only expressed sentiment then you would have a point. Because he knowingly supported a hate group politically and financially through proxy. It is not sentiment, it is action. The purpose and political entities involved with Yes on Prop 8 were publically known.
That is the hilarious part! For such to occur Mozilla does not need to discriminate against LGBT people. His action in 2008 entrapped Mozilla as California state law requires the employer of a person who donates must be listed. Mozilla loses either way! Promote him to CEO and the question of, ‘Who or what is stopping him from acting on his hatred again?’ is raised which creates a hostile work environment. Force him out and watch the outcry. Lose/lose. Some board members realized this snafu beforehand and GTFO.QuoteThe way people responded to his anti-gay views is an inherent part of him becoming a PR liability. Unless Mozilla actually discriminated against LGBT people as a result of his position as CEO, then the only problem is that people don't like his views (with good reason) and think he should be fired over them (not with good reason). Show me an example of that, and I'll freely admit I was misinformed and shut up.Board members such as John Lilly GTFO and did not call for his resignation afterward because they had the foresight to realize this was going to be a disaster. Ms. Baker and Mr. Hoffman tried to keep him in Mozilla too. (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/05/technology/personality-and-change-inflamed-crisis-at-mozilla.html?_r=0)
Suspiciously not an example of Mozilla discriminating against LGBT people as a result of Eich being CEO. I'm not sure why you're putting it up as a response to the quoted part.
I did not say Eich's speech wasn't hate speech because it was analogous to any of the examples above. I said that since speech that is clearly free falls under the vague category of harm, you can't use that to claim hate speech. As far as I can tell, you've only used the expression "inherent characteristic" once before, and it's not in the section I was responding to, so of course my quote above doesn't address it.It would seem you do not know what an inherent characteristic is. Two quick examples: sexuality and race. These are characteristics that any given person inherits upon existence. Such are not characteristics that can be changed at will.
I'm pretty sure we were having an argument about whether or not harm can be used to separate free speech from hate speech. If you want to go and admit that you cannot and use another definition, I'm fine with that, but don't try to make it like I'm arguing something I'm not.An early example of the legislative framework and history which established limits of speech when a population is targeted based upon inherit characteristic is Beaukarnais v. Illinois. This is a critical part of the history pertaining to how and why Group Libel was created as a legal concept.
Your argument continues to be "Eich had one point of agreement with some awful people, therefore we should treat him as equally awful in everything related to that point of agreement". My response continues to be that the AFA's views matter when we're discussing the AFA, and Eich's when we are discussing Eich.If he only expressed sentiment then you would have a point. Because he knowingly supported a hate group politically and financially through proxy. It is not sentiment, it is action. The purpose and political entities involved with Yes on Prop 8 were publically known.
That is the hilarious part! For such to occur Mozilla does not need to discriminate against LGBT people. His action in 2008 entrapped Mozilla as California state law requires the employer of a person who donates must be listed. Mozilla loses either way! Promote him to CEO and the question of, ‘Who or what is stopping him from acting on his hatred again?’ is raised which creates a hostile work environment.
According to your claim posts ago, I have underlined it for convenience sake, the qualifier of harm is vague thus hate speech cannot be distinguished from free speech.I appreciate the condescending English lesson, but I already know what "inherent" means. I have even used it before in sentences!I did not say Eich's speech wasn't hate speech because it was analogous to any of the examples above. I said that since speech that is clearly free falls under the vague category of harm, you can't use that to claim hate speech. As far as I can tell, you've only used the expression "inherent characteristic" once before, and it's not in the section I was responding to, so of course my quote above doesn't address it.It would seem you do not know what an inherent characteristic is. Two quick examples: sexuality and race. These are characteristics that any given person inherits upon existence. Such are not characteristics that can be changed at will.
Fascinating. Would you care to elaborate on how that is relevant? Keep in mind that I'm not making a legal argument, with all that implies to the relevance of Supreme Court rulings.Let’s go all the way back to page 2, again. Getting into TL:DR length here.
And he supported them on one specific point of agreement and not their general platform.If it was just sentiment not action then the results would have been entirely different. His action entrapped Mozilla as per California law.
Remember that link I posted?QuoteThat is the hilarious part! For such to occur Mozilla does not need to discriminate against LGBT people. His action in 2008 entrapped Mozilla as California state law requires the employer of a person who donates must be listed. Mozilla loses either way! Promote him to CEO and the question of, ‘Who or what is stopping him from acting on his hatred again?’ is raised which creates a hostile work environment.
Bare assertion. Please justify.
Mr. Lilly, now a venture capitalist with Greylock Partners, resigned from the Mozilla board two weeks ago, ahead of Mr. Eich’s appointment. “I left rather than appoint him,” he said, declining to elaborate further.
The board knew about Mr. Eich’s donation, as it had been public for two years, but it thought any controversy would pass. In many ways, Mozilla was not ready for the blowback over Mr. Eich because it had not realized how much the company itself had changed. (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/05/technology/personality-and-change-inflamed-crisis-at-mozilla.html?_r=1)
Compounding the problem, two of the three directors who left ahead of Mr. Eich’s appointment had long before signaled that they would leave. When Mr. Eich was named, there were only two people on Mozilla’s board, Ms. Baker and Reid Hoffman, the founder of LinkedIn. A third, Katharina Borchert, the head of Germany’s Spiegel Online, joined last week.
Both Ms. Baker and Mr. Hoffman said that they tried to get Mr. Eich to remain in a senior position at Mozilla, but that he quit because he thought it would cause more harm to the company if he stayed. “He was the right person for all of the technical growth, but the other things steered into him hard,” Mr. Hoffman said. “He said, ‘My continuing is not good for me or the organization.’ ” (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/05/technology/personality-and-change-inflamed-crisis-at-mozilla.html?_r=1)
I love @mozilla but I'm disappointed this week. @mozilla stands for openness and empowerment, but is acting in the opposite way.@chmcavoy (https://twitter.com/chmcavoy/status/449230710901985280?_escaped_fragment_=/chmcavoy/status/449230710901985280#!/chmcavoy/status/449230710901985280)
To me, @Mozilla is about openness & expression of freedom. I hope to see us have leadership that represents those values in their actions.@emgollie (https://twitter.com/emgollie/statuses/449231010824081408)
According to your claim posts ago, I have underlined it for convenience sake, the qualifier of harm is vague thus hate speech cannot be distinguished from free speech.
I argue that harm, which designates hate speech, is not vague due to explicit targeting of individuals based upon inherent characteristic (sexuality). If harm was vague no such targeting could be possible and no intent could be demonstrated. Tell me, how can the qualifier of vague survive both of the above?
Fascinating. Would you care to elaborate on how that is relevant? Keep in mind that I'm not making a legal argument, with all that implies to the relevance of Supreme Court rulings.Let’s go all the way back to page 2, again. Getting into TL:DR length here.You asked for a third party that that has quantified and qualified harm in a way that has widespread agreement. I have provided you an answer, the judicial system. Group libel was established way back in 1950 and is still valid today.(click to show/hide)
And he supported them on one specific point of agreement and not their general platform.If it was just sentiment not action then the results would have been entirely different. His action entrapped Mozilla as per California law.
Remember that link I posted?QuoteThat is the hilarious part! For such to occur Mozilla does not need to discriminate against LGBT people. His action in 2008 entrapped Mozilla as California state law requires the employer of a person who donates must be listed. Mozilla loses either way! Promote him to CEO and the question of, ‘Who or what is stopping him from acting on his hatred again?’ is raised which creates a hostile work environment.
Bare assertion. Please justify.QuoteMr. Lilly, now a venture capitalist with Greylock Partners, resigned from the Mozilla board two weeks ago, ahead of Mr. Eich’s appointment. “I left rather than appoint him,” he said, declining to elaborate further.
The board knew about Mr. Eich’s donation, as it had been public for two years, but it thought any controversy would pass. In many ways, Mozilla was not ready for the blowback over Mr. Eich because it had not realized how much the company itself had changed. (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/05/technology/personality-and-change-inflamed-crisis-at-mozilla.html?_r=1)QuoteCompounding the problem, two of the three directors who left ahead of Mr. Eich’s appointment had long before signaled that they would leave. When Mr. Eich was named, there were only two people on Mozilla’s board, Ms. Baker and Reid Hoffman, the founder of LinkedIn. A third, Katharina Borchert, the head of Germany’s Spiegel Online, joined last week.
Both Ms. Baker and Mr. Hoffman said that they tried to get Mr. Eich to remain in a senior position at Mozilla, but that he quit because he thought it would cause more harm to the company if he stayed. “He was the right person for all of the technical growth, but the other things steered into him hard,” Mr. Hoffman said. “He said, ‘My continuing is not good for me or the organization.’ ” (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/05/technology/personality-and-change-inflamed-crisis-at-mozilla.html?_r=1)
Remember the sentiment expressed?QuoteI love @mozilla but I'm disappointed this week. @mozilla stands for openness and empowerment, but is acting in the opposite way.@chmcavoy (https://twitter.com/chmcavoy/status/449230710901985280?_escaped_fragment_=/chmcavoy/status/449230710901985280#!/chmcavoy/status/449230710901985280)QuoteTo me, @Mozilla is about openness & expression of freedom. I hope to see us have leadership that represents those values in their actions.@emgollie (https://twitter.com/emgollie/statuses/449231010824081408)
Are you saying that's part of the definition of harm? Are you saying that you've explicitly qualified harm as targeting individuals based on inherent characteristics when you argued that it's the separator between free speech and hate speech? Because none of those is true, and I can't find any other interpretation of the bolded sentence that makes sense.How and why is harm, as a qualifier of hate speech, not intentional and targeted?
As to your actual point: As far as I can tell, this is the definition of harm for purposes of libel: "A statement is harmful if it seriously shames, ridicules, disgraces or injures a person's reputation or causes others to do so." Is this the definition of harm you have in mind? If not, do me a favour and tell me what it is rather than wait four days and eight posts in the discussion to bring it up. Once you have confirmed what you actually mean, I'll argue relevance to free speech and Eich's case in particular.An interesting, close summation. However, intention needs to be mentioned as intention needs to be proved. For the sake of expediency, "A statement is harmful if it is intentionally created to seriously shame, ridicule, disgrace or injure a person's reputation or causes others to do so.” As per New York Times Co. v. Sullivan intent has to be proven.
Entrapped as in "the act of government agents or officials that induces a person to commit a crime he or she is not previously disposed to commit"? I don't see how that applies.Very sloppy wording on my part, mea culpa.
People not liking a decision is not equivalent to a hostile work environment.
As long as there is no hostile work environment created or encouraged by it, any employee or employer has the right to contribute to political causes, even if those causes are so badly on the wrong side of history that we are looking at months, or a few years at most, to when they will be rendered moot.
Firing people because of public outcry against their personally held beliefs and outside-of-work activities is something that cuts both ways. I lost a couple of jobs (in the '80's and early '90's) because my employers discovered I was gay and a progressive who attended rallies and protests for various causes, not just LGBTQ rights. Their stated "reasons" for firing me was because my political activities could get me arrested and my name and workplace might be mentioned by the press. And because they were "family oriented" businesses. So yeah. I don't wish that kind of abuse on anyone, even a person who is my socio-political "enemy". Because this is supposed to be a free country. It will never be a free country if you are only free outside of work.Firing you because of your inherit characteristic (sexuality) is outright discrimination. You did not pose a creditable threat to that company because I assume that you were not placed in a unique position to represent that company (CEO) with no possible arbitration.
Firing you because of your inherit characteristic (sexuality) is outright discrimination. You did not pose a creditable threat to that company because I assume that you were not placed in a unique position to represent that company (CEO) with no possible arbitration.
TIM, I was a general manager at one of those lost jobs, actually, and legally defined as a full representative of the company. My point being though, that if free expression outside of the workplace is allowed to be a termination cause, by whichever degree, be it voting, party affiliation, activism, political donations, FB/tweet posting of Halloween party pictures of yourself holding a plastic drink cup or wearing a bikini while posing on top of your boat, etc., then there is no actual freedom of expression, in fact.Tell me, how are any of what you listed equivocal to intentional targeting of a group of persons by inherit characteristic? Their excuse of your activism does not hold water because they need to prove that your activism is harmful and they need to prove intent. I am willing to bet that they did neither thus it was wrongful termination.
Being vulnerable to actions that result in economic hardship and loss of good reputation (try to explain a putative dismissal on a resume and make it look like you aren't a whiner) means you are oppress-able without recourse to due process, without the immediate safeguards of citizen rights. You are effectively rendered an indentured servant, subject to the whim and sufferance of your employer, the moment you arrive at work....and every moment away from work, as well. Yes, there are some states where you can be made whole again after a wrongful dismissal, but I believe the majority of states now have some code equivalent of Right To Work statutes (oh, the travesty of that anti-union, double-think terminology!). In places like that, you are SOL if you get fired or pressured into resigning because of your life style or political beliefs.Forcing him out was not the right course of action, having him divorce Mozilla from his previous action is. That situation is one part legal snafu (Mozilla listed on his donation), one part management fuckup (board members GTFO instead of voting thus no arbitration) and one part Eich making things worse by further entangling Mozilla via interviews.
Are you saying that's part of the definition of harm? Are you saying that you've explicitly qualified harm as targeting individuals based on inherent characteristics when you argued that it's the separator between free speech and hate speech? Because none of those is true, and I can't find any other interpretation of the bolded sentence that makes sense.How and why is harm, as a qualifier of hate speech, not intentional and targeted?
For the sake of expediency, "A statement is harmful if it is intentionally created to seriously shame, ridicule, disgrace or injure a person's reputation or causes others to do so.” As per New York Times Co. v. Sullivan intent has to be proven.
Group Libel thus requires a group of persons to be intentionally targeted based upon common characteristic. In this case the common characteristic is an inherit characteristic (sexuality).
People not liking a decision is not equivalent to a hostile work environment.As long as there is no hostile work environment created or encouraged by it, any employee or employer has the right to contribute to political causes, even if those causes are so badly on the wrong side of history that we are looking at months, or a few years at most, to when they will be rendered moot.
His action created prerequisite conditions which resulted in dedicated opposition among employees and half the board members outright leaving when he it was inevitable that he would become CEO. Such did not occur when he was a member of the board. I assumed that people would ask why.
Arbitration. A board member can be overruled by other board members. It is possible to do the same to the CEO despite the appearance of representing the company. Because the board members who opposed his nomination due to his previous actions left, the question of who would act if he acted upon his hatred remains legitimate. The ensuing conflict and explicating targeting of homosexuals is enough to create a hostile work environment due to a perceived, credible threat with no means of arbitration.
You have outright misrepresented the intentions of Yes on Prop 8. There is no excuse for that as the barrier to obtaining the relevant info is a Google search. This is going to be fun!QuoteFor the sake of expediency, "A statement is harmful if it is intentionally created to seriously shame, ridicule, disgrace or injure a person's reputation or causes others to do so.” As per New York Times Co. v. Sullivan intent has to be proven.Alright then. If the statement in question is the one made by the donation ("gay people should not have the right to marry who they want"), then it does not shame or injure anyone's reputation. It doesn't fit the definition. If you have another statement in mind, what is it?
Group Libel thus requires a group of persons to be intentionally targeted based upon common characteristic. In this case the common characteristic is an inherit characteristic (sexuality).
California has a vital interest in responsible procreation and childrearing. Because only relationships between men and women can produce children, and children are most likely to thrive when raised by the father and mother who brought them into this world, opposite-sex relationships have the potential to further—or harm—this vital interest in a way that other types of relationships do not. Therefore, government has distinguished opposite-sex couples and steered procreative unions into marriage. As American jurisprudence has long recognized, marriage is the foundation of family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.ii Today, Californians and others must continue to protect and preserve traditional marriage to sustain American culture as we know it. (http://protectmarriage.com/why-marriage-matters)
But more profoundly, same-sex marriage would further undercut the idea that procreation is intrinsically connected to marriage. It would undermine the idea that children need both a mother and a father, further weakening the societal norm that men should take responsibility for the children they beget. And, same-sex marriage would likely corrode marital norms of permanence, monogamy, and fidelity. (http://protectmarriage.com/why-marriage-matters)
Professor Andrew Cherlin of Johns Hopkins University, a same-sex marriage supporter, identifies same-sex marriage as “the most recent development in the deinstitutionalization of marriage.” He further states that if deinstitutionalization continues, the number of people who ever marry could fall further, and due to high levels of out-of-wedlock childbirth, cohabitation, and divorce, people will spend less of their lives in intact marriages than in the past.iv
Other societies have experienced this firsthand. After the Netherlands became the first country to legalize same-sex marriage in 2001, rates of out-of-wedlock childbirth, cohabitation and divorce were all exacerbated in the aftermath of redefining marriage.v (http://protectmarriage.com/why-marriage-matters)
The problem being that Eich did nothing as CEO to give credence to the threat. In effect he's being punished not for what he did but what people thought he might do later on.If you are going to shift the context to when he is CEO then you have forgotten what I posted all the way back on page 2. As CEO he did not separate his hatred from his position.
Baker, chairwoman of the Mozilla Foundation, of which the Mozilla Corporation is a wholly-owned subsidiary, wrote in the 29 March blog post: "I want to speak clearly on behalf of both the Mozilla Corporation and the Mozilla Foundation: Mozilla supports equality for all, explicitly including LGBT equality and marriage equality." Eich stressed that Baker's statement applied only to Mozilla as a corporation and foundation, rather than to its broader mission.
“There's a difference here between the company, the foundation, as an employer and an entity, versus the project and community at large, which is not under any constraints to agree on LGBT equality or any other thing that is not central to the mission or the Mozilla manifesto.”
Eich also stressed that Firefox worked globally, including in countries like Indonesia with “different opinions”, and LGBT marriage was “not considered universal human rights yet, and maybe they will be, but that's in the future, right now we're in a world where we have to be global to have effect”.
You have outright misrepresented the intentions of Yes on Prop 8. There is no excuse for that as the barrier to obtaining the relevant info is a Google search. This is going to be fun!QuoteFor the sake of expediency, "A statement is harmful if it is intentionally created to seriously shame, ridicule, disgrace or injure a person's reputation or causes others to do so.” As per New York Times Co. v. Sullivan intent has to be proven.Alright then. If the statement in question is the one made by the donation ("gay people should not have the right to marry who they want"), then it does not shame or injure anyone's reputation. It doesn't fit the definition. If you have another statement in mind, what is it?
Group Libel thus requires a group of persons to be intentionally targeted based upon common characteristic. In this case the common characteristic is an inherit characteristic (sexuality).
The problem being that Eich did nothing as CEO to give credence to the threat. In effect he's being punished not for what he did but what people thought he might do later on.If you are going to shift the context to when he is CEO then you have forgotten what I posted all the way back on page 2. As CEO he did not separate his hatred from his position.QuoteBaker, chairwoman of the Mozilla Foundation, of which the Mozilla Corporation is a wholly-owned subsidiary, wrote in the 29 March blog post: "I want to speak clearly on behalf of both the Mozilla Corporation and the Mozilla Foundation: Mozilla supports equality for all, explicitly including LGBT equality and marriage equality." Eich stressed that Baker's statement applied only to Mozilla as a corporation and foundation, rather than to its broader mission.
“There's a difference here between the company, the foundation, as an employer and an entity, versus the project and community at large, which is not under any constraints to agree on LGBT equality or any other thing that is not central to the mission or the Mozilla manifesto.”
As you have insisted before, intent has to be proved. Can you prove that Eich intended to make the same statements as protectmarriage.com and not that he solely agreed to the legal effects of prop 8? For example, is he elsewhere on record saying that he is (was?) against same-sex marriage for reasons X, Y, Z?He specifically donated money to Yes on Prop 8 during its campaign and did not chose to withdraw the funds at a later date. His actions demonstrate his intent and willful agreement. The excuse of ignorance does not hold water because: their intentions are publicly available and he has a greater than normal understanding of the web as a platform of content.
As stated by chairwomen Baker, "I want to speak clearly on behalf of both the Mozilla Corporation and the Mozilla Foundation: Mozilla supports equality for all, explicitly including LGBT equality and marriage equality." The Mozilla Corporation supported LGBT equality and marriage equality. Eich, as CEO, represents the Mozilla Corporation. By publically rationalizing his hatred as an unavoidable part of distributing Fiefox he has misrepresented the Mozilla Corporation.QuoteThe problem being that Eich did nothing as CEO to give credence to the threat. In effect he's being punished not for what he did but what people thought he might do later on.If you are going to shift the context to when he is CEO then you have forgotten what I posted all the way back on page 2. As CEO he did not separate his hatred from his position.QuoteBaker, chairwoman of the Mozilla Foundation, of which the Mozilla Corporation is a wholly-owned subsidiary, wrote in the 29 March blog post: "I want to speak clearly on behalf of both the Mozilla Corporation and the Mozilla Foundation: Mozilla supports equality for all, explicitly including LGBT equality and marriage equality." Eich stressed that Baker's statement applied only to Mozilla as a corporation and foundation, rather than to its broader mission.
“There's a difference here between the company, the foundation, as an employer and an entity, versus the project and community at large, which is not under any constraints to agree on LGBT equality or any other thing that is not central to the mission or the Mozilla manifesto.”
His point is specifically that the organization has a clear pro-LGBT policy and the community is free to have whichever views they have. That seems a pretty clear separation of his personal views and his position as a representative of Mozilla.
Eich also stressed that Firefox worked globally, including in countries like Indonesia with “different opinions”, and LGBT marriage was “not considered universal human rights yet, and maybe they will be, but that's in the future, right now we're in a world where we have to be global to have effect”.
As you have insisted before, intent has to be proved. Can you prove that Eich intended to make the same statements as protectmarriage.com and not that he solely agreed to the legal effects of prop 8? For example, is he elsewhere on record saying that he is (was?) against same-sex marriage for reasons X, Y, Z?He specifically donated money to Yes on Prop 8 during its campaign and did not chose to withdraw the funds at a later date. His actions demonstrate his intent and willful agreement. The excuse of ignorance does not hold water because: their intentions are publicly available and he has a greater than normal understanding of the web as a platform of content.
Hate speech is not speech that advocates laws the may take away rights from people, harm them you might say.You are confounding advocacy with libel in an attempt to flat out ignore libel and group libel. As advocacy is not inherently a method of defamation while libel is.
Hate speech is speech that may incite physical violence against a group or might cause a violent reaction. This is laid out by the US Supreme Court in Brandenburg v. Ohio.Your attempt to restrict harm to bodily harm is outright disingenuous.
Hate speech is not speech that advocates laws the may take away rights from people, harm them you might say.You are confounding advocacy with libel in an attempt to flat out ignore libel and group libel. As advocacy is not inherently a method of defamation while libel is.Hate speech is speech that may incite physical violence against a group or might cause a violent reaction. This is laid out by the US Supreme Court in Brandenburg v. Ohio.Your attempt to restrict harm to bodily harm is outright disingenuous.
Secondly, hate speech is speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a group of people based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. (http://reporthate.ucsc.edu/about/definitions.html)
I do not have a clue what you are talking about when bringing up libel. Someone advocating to keep same-sex marriage is not making false statements. It is like you are simply throwing words out there.You flat out willfully ignore the all the publically stated, WARGARBLE political causes for Yes on Prop 8. That campaign specifically targeted people based upon an inherit characteristic (sexuality). I will repost their publicized campaign statements:
Now I'm not trying to restrict harm.By trying to limit harm to bodily harm you are restricting what can be considered harm. Thus you are disingenuous.
It is pure and simple fact that hate speech is defined in law by speech that is calling for physical violence against a person or group.
Hate speech is a controversial term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a group of people based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability;Nice selective reading you got there, a shame you missed the important info. Fret not, I bolded and quoted it for you. Tell me how and why are the above spoilered examples not intended to degrade, intimidate or are prejudicial actions?
Existing law requires local law enforcement agencies, at the direction of the Attorney General and subject to the availability of adequate funding for the Department of Justice, to report to the Department of Justice, in a manner to be prescribed by the Attorney General, any information that may be required relative to any criminal acts or attempted criminal acts to cause physical injury, emotional suffering, or property damage where there is a reasonable cause to believe that the crime was motivated, in whole or in part, by the victim's race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or physical or mental disability.How and why does the specific targeting of people by inherit characteristic (sexuality), as exemplified by the above spoilered section, not cause emotional suffering?
The definition you posted is a broader definition of hate speech which the link you posted states, "....but this would usually not be a hate crime, because of freedom of speech laws."Oh m52nickerson you never fail to selectively, willingly ignore content and context.
For example, a group may use hate speech in an attempt to discriminate: protesters carrying signs that say “God Hates Gays,” but this would usually not be a hate crime, because of freedom of speech laws.Tell me how and why is Yes on Prop 8 a protest? How are 3rd parties donating money to a political campaign a protest?
I’m back, friggin weather knocked out power and communication.I do not have a clue what you are talking about when bringing up libel. Someone advocating to keep same-sex marriage is not making false statements. It is like you are simply throwing words out there.You flat out willfully ignore the all the publically stated, WARGARBLE political causes for Yes on Prop 8. That campaign specifically targeted people based upon an inherit characteristic (sexuality). I will repost their publicized campaign statements:(click to show/hide)Now I'm not trying to restrict harm.By trying to limit harm to bodily harm you are restricting what can be considered harm. Thus you are disingenuous.It is pure and simple fact that hate speech is defined in law by speech that is calling for physical violence against a person or group.QuoteHate speech is a controversial term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a group of people based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability;Nice selective reading you got there, a shame you missed the important info. Fret not, I bolded and quoted it for you. Tell me how and why are the above spoilered examples not intended to degrade, intimidate or are prejudicial actions?
If you try to ignore all of the above and just stick with the California Penal Code you still lose.QuoteExisting law requires local law enforcement agencies, at the direction of the Attorney General and subject to the availability of adequate funding for the Department of Justice, to report to the Department of Justice, in a manner to be prescribed by the Attorney General, any information that may be required relative to any criminal acts or attempted criminal acts to cause physical injury, emotional suffering, or property damage where there is a reasonable cause to believe that the crime was motivated, in whole or in part, by the victim's race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or physical or mental disability.How and why does the specific targeting of people by inherit characteristic (sexuality), as exemplified by the above spoilered section, not cause emotional suffering?The definition you posted is a broader definition of hate speech which the link you posted states, "....but this would usually not be a hate crime, because of freedom of speech laws."Oh m52nickerson you never fail to selectively, willingly ignore content and context.QuoteFor example, a group may use hate speech in an attempt to discriminate: protesters carrying signs that say “God Hates Gays,” but this would usually not be a hate crime, because of freedom of speech laws.Tell me how and why is Yes on Prop 8 a protest? How are 3rd parties donating money to a political campaign a protest?
The statements made by the prop 8 supporters are against same sex marriage, not homosexuals. Therefore not libel.The political, publicized statements that same sex marriage is destroying American society, culture and other WARGARBLE explicitly targets homosexuals because only homosexuals are married by same sex marriage. Their WARGARBLE explicitly identifies couples through sexuality. TL:DR WARGARBLE marriage is only for making babies.
California has a vital interest in responsible procreation and childrearing. Because only relationships between men and women can produce children, and children are most likely to thrive when raised by the father and mother who brought them into this world, opposite-sex relationships have the potential to further—or harm—this vital interest in a way that other types of relationships do not. Therefore, government has distinguished opposite-sex couples and steered procreative unions into marriage. As American jurisprudence has long recognized, marriage is the foundation of family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.ii Today, Californians and others must continue to protect and preserve traditional marriage to sustain American culture as we know it.
At the same time, societies have never required that would-be spouses actually have or form “satisfying relationships” and “deep emotional bonds and strong commitments,” which are the reasons that same-sex marriage proponents often give for equal recognition of their unions.
a ban on same sex marriage does not state homosexuals can't marry, they state two people of the same sex can't marry. This distinction is important because federally sexual orientation is not protected trait, but sex is. That is why there is a chance to win in the courts.That’s a whole lot of cognitive dissonance you got there. Let see how deep this rabbit hole goes. Tell me, without any homosexuality why would two people of the same sex marry? Oh and please try and falsely equate civil unions with marriage too.
As for the California statute donating or supporting Prop 8 is not hate speech because it is not a criminal act. The statute state that any criminal act or attempted act which may cause emotional suffering. So the act has to be criminal first, donation to political campaigns is not criminal.And you willfully ignore the difference between hate speech, hate crime and hate motivated act too. Wow.
I did not ignore your posted definition of hate speech, I outright rejected it. As I said anywhere you have hate speech laws they almost always indicated that the speech must result in or call for physical violence. Not the broader term harm. So harm and what it is or is not does not come into it. The places where they do use broader terms of harm are places were hate speech laws are geared to protect the religious.
That’s a whole lot of cognitive dissonance you got there. Let see how deep this rabbit hole goes. Tell me, without any homosexuality why would two people of the same sex marry? Oh and please try and falsely equate civil unions with marriage too.
The statements made by the prop 8 supporters are against same sex marriage, not homosexuals. Therefore not libel.The political, publicized statements that same sex marriage is destroying American society, culture and other WARGARBLE explicitly targets homosexuals because only homosexuals are married by same sex marriage. Their WARGARBLE explicitly identifies couples through sexuality. TL:DR WARGARBLE marriage is only for making babies.QuoteCalifornia has a vital interest in responsible procreation and childrearing. Because only relationships between men and women can produce children, and children are most likely to thrive when raised by the father and mother who brought them into this world, opposite-sex relationships have the potential to further—or harm—this vital interest in a way that other types of relationships do not. Therefore, government has distinguished opposite-sex couples and steered procreative unions into marriage. As American jurisprudence has long recognized, marriage is the foundation of family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.ii Today, Californians and others must continue to protect and preserve traditional marriage to sustain American culture as we know it.
And they care for nothing else.QuoteAt the same time, societies have never required that would-be spouses actually have or form “satisfying relationships” and “deep emotional bonds and strong commitments,” which are the reasons that same-sex marriage proponents often give for equal recognition of their unions.a ban on same sex marriage does not state homosexuals can't marry, they state two people of the same sex can't marry. This distinction is important because federally sexual orientation is not protected trait, but sex is. That is why there is a chance to win in the courts.That’s a whole lot of cognitive dissonance you got there. Let see how deep this rabbit hole goes. Tell me, without any homosexuality why would two people of the same sex marry? Oh and please try and falsely equate civil unions with marriage too.As for the California statute donating or supporting Prop 8 is not hate speech because it is not a criminal act. The statute state that any criminal act or attempted act which may cause emotional suffering. So the act has to be criminal first, donation to political campaigns is not criminal.And you willfully ignore the difference between hate speech, hate crime and hate motivated act too. Wow.
I did not ignore your posted definition of hate speech, I outright rejected it. As I said anywhere you have hate speech laws they almost always indicated that the speech must result in or call for physical violence. Not the broader term harm. So harm and what it is or is not does not come into it. The places where they do use broader terms of harm are places were hate speech laws are geared to protect the religious.
No the speech against same sex unions does not specifically target homosexuals. In a state were same sex marriages are allowed can two heterosexual men get married? Yes. Would they is a different matter. That is why say that same sex marriages are destroying society targets the marriage, not the individuals.Tell me, how are union and marriage equivalent to the point of interchangeability and how is it not separate but equal?
See if it was not for the distinction between same sex marriage and homosexuality court would not be ruling for same sex marriage. They do so because it is a person's sex which can't be discriminated against. There is nothing in the Constitution that says you can't discriminate based on sexual orientation.Do tell how and why someone can't be discriminated against due to their sex.
I'm am not ignorant of the differences of hate speech and hate crimes. You seem to be. I asked you before if you could post a hate speech law from anywhere that would make donation to anti-same sex marriages groups a hate speech crime, or even talking in opposition of same sex marriage. You have yet to do so because you can't.Tell me, is group libel speech or action?
No the speech against same sex unions does not specifically target homosexuals. In a state were same sex marriages are allowed can two heterosexual men get married? Yes. Would they is a different matter. That is why say that same sex marriages are destroying society targets the marriage, not the individuals.Tell me, how are union and marriage equivalent to the point of interchangeability and how is it not separate but equal?
Secondly, you have not answered the question. Without any homosexuality why would two people of the same sex marry? An absurdity is not a defense.See if it was not for the distinction between same sex marriage and homosexuality court would not be ruling for same sex marriage. They do so because it is a person's sex which can't be discriminated against. There is nothing in the Constitution that says you can't discriminate based on sexual orientation.Do tell how and why someone can't be discriminated against due to their sex.I'm am not ignorant of the differences of hate speech and hate crimes. You seem to be. I asked you before if you could post a hate speech law from anywhere that would make donation to anti-same sex marriages groups a hate speech crime, or even talking in opposition of same sex marriage. You have yet to do so because you can't.Tell me, is group libel speech or action?
Group Libel
Individuals can be defamed; groups of people cannot be. The key question is whether a statement about a group can reasonably be interpreted to refer to a specific individual in the group. While there is no hard rule, several courts have indicated that individual members of a group larger than 25 will have a difficult time proving that they have suffered individual harm. On the other hand, individuals in a smaller group may be able to claim that their reputation has been damaged. For example, the generic statement, "the tennis team is being investigated for substance abuse" could subject a publication to a libel suit if the team consists of just 12 members.
No the speech against same sex unions does not specifically target homosexuals.Bullshit. Context matters.
No the speech against same sex unions does not specifically target homosexuals.Bullshit. Context matters.
Same sex marriage is a concept that is intrinsically linked to homosexual persons.
The counterargument that two hetero men could marry too with SSM established is equivalent to saying that without SSM, a homosexual man can marry any woman he wishes, so he is not legally disadvantaged. In a mathematical sense true, but utterly irrelevant in the real world. In the real world, context is a thing, and you can't isolate a single aspect to the situation and make a generalization about it, unless you show that those other aspects are irrelevant. The right to marry a woman is worthless to a gay man, and the right to marry a man is worthless to a straight man, so a law banning SSM is not affecting heterosexual people in a meaningful way. Therefore, it is targeting homosexual people specifically. Speech supporting such a law follows in the same vein.