I don't think he necessarily meant that you need to respect the beliefs themselves, especially if you don't agree with them.

Rather, I think it's more about everyone respecting the ability of everyone else to hold their own set of beliefs, even if you disagree with theirs, and even if they may disagree with yours.

In this particular incident we've seen a lot of hypocrisy. We've seen a lot of people calling for "tolerance" and "equality", yet to them that means merely that their viewpoint must be the only one that can be held or expressed. It ends up being a very quaint, twisted interpretation of tolerance and equality.

Respecting the right of someone to have a belief does not mean ignoring that belief when deciding if you like them.

1. Eich is absolutely allowed to be against gay marriage.

2. The Mozilla community is absolutely allowed to be against Eich because of his position on gay marriage.

This is not a discrimination case where Eich is being excluded from a job because of beliefs unrelated to his job. This is a case where Eich is being elected to a job where his job is to represent the Mozilla community. But he doesn't obviously represent the community – potentially disqualifying him from the job.

> This is a case where Eich is being elected to a job where his job is to represent the Mozilla community.

Is the Mozilla community asking him to represent their views on marriage?

If he's making the donations as a private citizen, then it strikes me as odd that he's somehow unqualified to talk about software.

Is the next step asking people to step down because they voted for the losing candidate who represented slightly less than 51% of the voting public? (That's a serious questions & a logical next step in an increasingly partisan ideology that thinks in black & white rather than shades of grey).

> Is the Mozilla community asking him to represent their views on marriage?

No, but why does that matter? The community doesn't want anything to do with him because he's a bigot. He's allowed to do what he wants and the community is allowed to shun him if they want.

What does it mean to "respect the ability of everyone to hold their own set of beliefs"? How would I apply this to, e.g. Time Cube guy or the KKK?

I'm not sure who the Timecube guy is, but you include the KKK with that & you defend their ability to say what they believe. That's what free speech is.

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire

>I'm not sure who the Timecube guy is

http://www.timecube.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Cube

Okay, stupid idea - maybe, but am I going to tell the internet to take his site down? No.

When did we get afraid to let people make up their own minds on things? For every out-there crazy idea that's the work of a nut-job, there's one out-there crazy idea that just might work.

It was my mis-interpretation of "respect the ability of everyone to hold their own set of beliefs" to mean free speech/thought that led me to mention Time Cube. Of course he should be able to have his site. But I might decide I wouldn't want to work with him, trust his opinion, or have him represent me.

Is anyone saying that Eich shouldn't be able to believe what he wants? Or are people upset that someone campaigning against civil liberties is now representing and leading Mozilla?

If you do not respect people's freedom to hold the most fringe and controversial of opinions, then you are opposed to free speech by nature. You don't have to agree with the opinion being expressed, but with the right to express it.

What exactly are you asking?

They have their beliefs. You have yours. You presumably want to be able to hold your own beliefs. They presumably want to be able to hold their own beliefs. You may disagree with their beliefs, and you should be free to express this, if you so desire. They may disagree with your beliefs, and they should be able to express this, if they so desire. It's irrelevant who "you" are in this case, and who "they" are.

Even if they choose not to respect your ability to hold your own beliefs, it's probably best if you still respect their ability to hold that belief.

You're referring to free speech? Of course everyone should be able to hold whatever belief they want and say what they like. Other people should be free to judge them too, and discourage them.

Isn't that what this is all about? Eich expressed his beliefs by contributing to a cause that actively harmed many people's personal lives. Now people are upset about that and thinking perhaps he shouldn't lead Mozilla. I don't see any free speech issues here.

because respecting someone's beliefs == respecting that person. you can think the the beliefs are stupid, but you can still respect them.

Finally someone who gets it. Free speech isn't about some abstract right that you can only technically exercise. Everyone also has the right to associate with whoever they chose. But launching public campaigns designed to restrict the speech of someone is not okay in my view, it's like a form of harrassment I think. Launching campaigns to _discredit their ideas_ however, is better I think. Also just launching a campaign to publicize their views is fine, as long as they're backed up with evidence (which they are in this case).

I may be on the wrong side of this issue but I refuse to take part in boycotts because I think they're ineffective and just harmful, unless of course the product itself is harming people in some way.

No, neither of you get it. All you have is the right to speech free from governmental impedance; you do not have any sort of right to speech free from civil consequences.

Boycotts are a form of free speech too, you know. How come you're not so antsy to defend those rights, I wonder?

While it may not technically be a violation of laws protecting freedom of speech, consider for example...

- Organizing a group of bookstores to stop selling a certain book because you find it offensive for any reason

- Using your privileged position at say, a conference, to get other speakers removed because you dislike them

- as a web service provider, removing a website about a topic you find offensive

None of these have anything to do with the government making a law that infringes on free speech. If they don't violate laws protecting free speech then they certainly piss all over the spirit of it. Or are they only bad when the speech is the "right" kind of speech?

Also as I said elsewhere in the thread, most of the time I find boycotts ineffective, especially when it would only jurt innocent people and when the change it creates is merely cosmetic. You're certainly free to boycott anything you wish, and to ask others to boycott, but you can't expect everyone to agree it's a good idea.

boycotts are fine. the problem is that people are taking personal issues and making them into corporate issues, and that's what is not OK.

a person's private life and professional life are SEPARATE. You shouldn't punish Mozilla employees for things the person at the helm does IN HIS PRIVATE LIFE

What does it mean to respect a belief, or have it equal to respecting the person? Some people would have others hung for dating outside their race - what does it entail exactly to "respect that person"? Like, admit they are human and should be allowed to hold their own beliefs? Because you can do that while holding someone in complete contempt.

It means that you attack their beliefs, not the person themself. Or you publicize their views and say that you disagree with them. In this case there are some people doing just that, which is fine. However IMO trying to launch a boycott against Firefox is silly and poorly thought out. You are only increasing the chance that people will be harrassed (disrespected) for their browser choice, and pushing people towards non-free software like Chrome and MSIE.

> you can think the the beliefs are stupid, but you can still respect them.

I have no idea what you're saying here. What does respecting stupid ideas even look like?

EDIT: I respect people's right to hold and express stupid ideas. That does not mean I cannot discuss, at length and with vigor, how stupid they are, or encourage others to avoid financially supporting the people who hold those stupid ideas. I, too, have the right to free speech.

Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.

Gilbert K. Chesterton

Chesterton was talented, but he was glib. Tolerance is one of the most difficult virtues and we need a lot more of it on Hacker News.