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.
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
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?
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.
