> His act was his right under freedom of speech, in a public democratic process. In fact the majority (or close to it) of the voting public agreed with him, IIRC. If an issue is under vote, it's the voter's right to take whatever side he likes.
Ok. We do not generally believe that the minority's rights are a matter to be decided by the majority. But that's a separate issue and I agree his act was certainly an exercise of his guaranteed rights.
> The counter-action was an ad-hoc protest to strip him from his position.
Wait. Wasn't the counter action merely a number of individuals each exercising their right under freedom of speech, in the public marketplace?
The right to free speech applies to everyone, not just to Eich. The right to free speech is a right to speech free from government suppression, not a right to speech free from consequences. It is, especially, not a right to speech free from other people using their right to free speech to complain about your views.
> That is, an interference with something not under vote,
What, pray tell, is "interference with something not under vote"? Using your freedom of speech to encourage people to take their money/time/attention/web browser usage elsewhere is fundamental to the concepts of Freedom of Speech and the Free Market, is it not? Is this not exactly what Eich was doing? Using his speech and money to support an idea that had negative consequences for others?
> and in a field not related to his "offending" action.
Eich used his speech and money to support the relegation of LGBTQ-identifying Californians to second-class citizenship. Mozilla has a large number of LGBTQ-identifying employees who live in California. Eich was appointed CEO of Mozilla. This was directly related to his actions.
> Essentially a vocal group bullying for his firing.
Again, I do not rightly apprehend how a group calling for a man to lose his job is more of a bully, more worthy of condemnation, than a man using his money to attempt to ensure his fellow employees and fellow citizens were constitutionally condemned to second-class citizenship.
At no point in this drama has Eich been denied access to any fundamental rights. That's more than you can say for any of his (former) LGBTQ employees.
Ok. We do not generally believe that the minority's rights are a matter to be decided by the majority. But that's a separate issue and I agree his act was certainly an exercise of his guaranteed rights.
> The counter-action was an ad-hoc protest to strip him from his position.
Wait. Wasn't the counter action merely a number of individuals each exercising their right under freedom of speech, in the public marketplace?
The right to free speech applies to everyone, not just to Eich. The right to free speech is a right to speech free from government suppression, not a right to speech free from consequences. It is, especially, not a right to speech free from other people using their right to free speech to complain about your views.
> That is, an interference with something not under vote,
What, pray tell, is "interference with something not under vote"? Using your freedom of speech to encourage people to take their money/time/attention/web browser usage elsewhere is fundamental to the concepts of Freedom of Speech and the Free Market, is it not? Is this not exactly what Eich was doing? Using his speech and money to support an idea that had negative consequences for others?
> and in a field not related to his "offending" action.
Eich used his speech and money to support the relegation of LGBTQ-identifying Californians to second-class citizenship. Mozilla has a large number of LGBTQ-identifying employees who live in California. Eich was appointed CEO of Mozilla. This was directly related to his actions.
> Essentially a vocal group bullying for his firing.
Again, I do not rightly apprehend how a group calling for a man to lose his job is more of a bully, more worthy of condemnation, than a man using his money to attempt to ensure his fellow employees and fellow citizens were constitutionally condemned to second-class citizenship.
At no point in this drama has Eich been denied access to any fundamental rights. That's more than you can say for any of his (former) LGBTQ employees.