[Seree Zohar]

There is something I don’t understand and would be pleased to hear comment on.

Eich, (instant-ex) CEO of Mozilla, was ousted through social media pressure for a small donation he made in 2008 when Obama stated that marriage meant one man with one woman. This was a private donation, not one given signed by him in the name of the company where he worked at the time. (I trust I have these facts correct).

America prides itself on (1) freedom of speech, and (2) freedom of religious belief; (3) on privacy not being invaded, and (4) business being transparent. How does this ouster, caused primarily by okCupid without asking okCupid’s hundreds of thousands of users if they agree to being represented by such public pressure, not constitute an invasion of privacy, breach of freedom of speech and breach of freedom of religious belief?

I'm not asking what anyone here believes, or whether one or the other belief is correct or incorrect. I'm asking about the correctness of such a move in light of 1-3, and the legality/reasonability of using social media this way.

[Chris O'Carroll]

Freedom of speech means that the government can’t punish us for the ideas we express. It doesn’t mean that our fellow citizens can’t use their freedom of speech to denounce us. That great First Amendment absolutist Nat Hentoff used to say that the Constitution guarantees us freedom from censorship, not freedom from criticism.

If I go around declaring that I hate Jews and think black people are inferior to whites, I can’t be thrown in jail for that, and it would be illegal for you to assault me for it. But nobody would be violating my rights if they decided on the basis of those statements to vote against me or not to do business with me.

Below is a link to a piece about the end of Brendan Eich’s brief tenure as Mozilla’s CEO. We can agree or disagree with the people who agitated for his departure, but we can’t accuse them of violating his freedom speech. (And it seems to me that any claims about a religious freedom violation or an invasion of privacy are equally shaky.)

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...ndan-eich.html

[Raul Puzon]

Seree, gays and lesbians are the new blacks in America. When they speak, they have to be heard to avoid a backlash. They control the social media. It's not a stereotype; they are loud, articulate people. They have educated human capital, and yes, pink money businesses want to hoard. The racism before is now homophobia. Look at the Republicans; they try hard not to sound homophobic. So 70's when they tried hard not to come off as racist.

[Quincy Lehr]

Originally Posted by Raul Puzon

When they speak, they have to be heard to avoid a backlash. They control the social media.

And the regular media. And the liberal agenda. And the mainline churches. (It is possible that I'm being sarcastic in order to rebut the absurdity of the above statement.)

[Raul Puzon]

Quincy, we can resort to enumeration, you know:

Who can beat Degeneres (lesbian) and Oprah (LGBT supporter)?

How about Dan Savage who made former presidents and big politicians toe the gay line--"it gets better."?

Is there someone bigger than Madonna and Lady Gaga who are both LGBT supporters, and yes, they are the goddesses of social media?

CNN alone has three gay newscasters and the rest are their friends. Didn't you read how Anderson Cooper's Prada shoes have been talked about in the social media?

I won't mention the influential gay men in Hollywood and Wall Street.

What are the big social media-based industries that are mostly populated by gay men? Fashion, beauty, and home design. Any question?

Remember last Grammy's--there was a gay mock wedding on stage? It was shown all over America. It had been talked about in the social media for weeks. Can straight Americans really control the gay Hollywood?

I can go on and on. What I'm saying is that LGBT has a solid voice in the American Social Media.

Social Media is a vast cyber/media environment, and gays and lesbians have dominated it--whether you like it or not.

Raul

[Quincy Lehr]

Raul you tub-thumping demagogue--

First off, you said gay people, not gay people and their supporters, of whom I am one, by the way, though you spuriously imply otherwise I'd agree if you'd said that the gay rights movement has clearly made inroads in American consciousness, with high-profile gay people and their supporters playing an important role In public discourse. But that isn't what you said. What you said would sound normal coming out of the mouth of the likes of Pat Robertson, whom I'll guess you don't like.

[Raul Puzon]

Well, Quincy, even if you take away the personalities who have huge gay fan bases, the LGBT voice in the social media remains solid.

The social politics of Madonna and Gaga is queer because of their huge queer fans. That explains why they should be included.

In case you want to know, the use of such social media power to infringe upon someone's rights to speech, religion, and expression, to me, is social and political bullying. I don't support it. I'm into intellectual discourses that are untainted with majority/minority rule or by power structure/play.

Raul

[Kevin Rainbow]

I'm asking about the correctness of such a move in light of 1-3, and the legality/reasonability of using social media this way.

I don't see how it can be considered right. He was privately supporting something that accorded to his beliefs about marriage. He shouldn't be punished for simply making a choice based on his beliefs, which choice was legal, private, and didn't harm anyone, and didn't interfere with his ability to do his job effectively. He certainly shouldn't be punished for simply having his beliefs.

[Gail White]

Anderson Cooper wears Prada shoes??

[Orwn Acra]

Originally Posted by Kevin Rainbow

and didn't harm anyone

No, Kevin Rainbow (ironic). It does harm people. Fortunately, this sort of thinking (******) will soon be found only in the form of curious fossils from a quizzical past, as the future wonders how its old self could discriminate against so many.

Why don't you tell me (*****) how taking an active stance against gay marriage doesn't harm someone?

OKCupid seems to take pride in its inclusiveness. Believe it or not, there are a handful of match-making sites that don't have options for gays and lesbians. We are finally reaching a point in society where those who actively discriminate against gay people are being ostracized.