Additional question, though/devil's advocate: Whether or not it's related to the ability to do one's job, is there a point where shit from one's private life becomes unignorable? Would, for example, you still have the same issue if he'd been drummed out because it turned out he'd donated a grand to NAMBLA?
Provided the organisation is legal, yes. I'd find the man to be completely reprehensible but I'd still defend his right to an opinion without fear of losing his job.
It would be a very difficult thing to defend, though. Can you imagine the outcry from the public against anyone who dared pointing out that what he does with his money on his free time is irrelevant?
Is whether or not it's legal the line you'd draw? Are there illegal activities you do or don't think should affect his position? Or a line? Technically, for example, expanding the example above, if the man had also previously been convicted and had to register as a sex offender, but had served his time and debt to society otherwise, he'd still be able to do his job. Discrimination against people who flunk CORIs is rampant and is in many ways and instances morally reprehensible.
Oooh, a far more difficult question than I first thought. My gut reaction was to say yes, that's where I draw the line re Mozilla. But thinking about it, I remain doubtful. In principle, it's easier for me to understand why a company might want to sack somebody who financially supported an illegal but unrelated cause, but I'm not sure I agree with such a standpoint anyway. There are plenty of silly laws.
I guess my stance is that if the donation in itself was legal, then fine; it should not result in a dismissal.
A previous conviction might conceivably hurt an employer, depending on the nature of the crime and whether or not the conviction was known when the person was first hired, but that's not really a free speech issue, it's a discrimination issue.
Also curious- in your opinion, is there a counterpoint to be made re: public opinion also being people exercising their freedom of speech, albeit en masse? Is this also something of an issue of free speech vs. free speech?
Public opinion as discussed here is a tool and not about free speech per se, IMHO, it's about exerting pressure to enforce a standpoint. Quite a dirty one at that, too. It's not anything as noble as the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few or anything like that; it's populism at its dirtiest.
I'm sure there is a point to be made, though. One that is slightly related is any democracy where a vote 51/49 results in the opinions of almost half of the population being ignored. Technically, you could say that the system works but the result in many countries is a polarised system without compromises under the pretence of democracy.
As a side note, I find the whole concept of money being "free speech" really kind of disturbing, at least in terms of this: http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/04/03/campaign-finance-donations-free-speech-democracy-column/7273303/ Like, jesus fucking christ.
It is disturbing, yes. Not sure what to think about it, tbh.
