A demotion can also be a constructive dismissal as well. Very few, CEOs accept demotions that they are pressured into. Even without taking away a cent in his salary, bonus and benefits, you may still have the conditions for constructive dismissal.

...No.

(What was the question again?)

I disagree completely with this. If we think we are anywhere near ready to colonise another planet, why don't we first colonise the ocean. Yes, the ocean!

If you think it is worthwhile to send someone off to Mars because it might help us establish a colony there, then maybe we should start by building colonies right on this planet in places that are inhospitable to humans now. Like at the bottom of the ocean. And make them self-sufficient too, i.e. able to function without any interaction with the outside world.

If we can't do it on this planet, we haven't a prayer of colonising a completely inhospitable environment like Mars.

That is sophistry.

The employees knowingly put their own company in a difficult position by demanding, on twitter, for the resignation of their CEO. Of course you can't just fire the CEO. But you can make his position untenable, which is what this employee did.

The ramifications could be even worse.

Many powerful people may now use this as a way to get rid of the rules around funding for political causes because there will now be evidence that people can be "persecuted" for possessing contrary views in a political debate. And I can see judges agreeing with it.

So the end result will be that in the future billionaires like the Koch brothers will be able to anonymously fund their pet political causes. And this WILL happen because someone took advantage of a rule that was intended to stop the wealthy from subverting the political process. Now we have evidence that those rules can now be used to suppress dissenting opinion and therefore they are fair game to be challenged.

If I was an ultra right-wing lawyer, I might just be going to the Supreme Court to demand that wealthy people be allowed to anonymously commit unlimited amounts of money to political causes of their choosing.

Reductio ad absurdum (yes I know what that means, and it applies here). You charged that Baidu choosing to "censor" (in quotes because the word doesn't really apply here) blocks access to information. I applied your reasoning to a situation in which another person might choose not to provide information (theoretical person being quizzed by a Nazi).

Both are refusing to provide information to fulfil the request (one using technical means, and the other by refusing to remember). In a free society, unless you have a very selective value system, you cannot call one censorship and the other, well, whatever you decide to call it.

Freedom of speech means exactly what if says. You are free to say what you want. You cannot be compelled to say what you don't want to say. You can't have "freedom of speech" if you are not free to not speak. Therefore Baidu can't be accused of censorship because they are not preventing any speech. They are just choosing not to provide a platform for certain "speeches" and those speakers are free to speak on any other platform of their choosing.

Baidu cannot be accused of censorship any more than Fox News or MSNBC could be accused of censorship.

I just commented on your use of the word bigot. I am having "fun" reading the comments. I couldn't care less what the CEO of Mozilla says or thinks and what causes he chooses to donate to. It's not going to stop using the Mozilla browser any less than the fact that Tim Cook is (allegedly) gay could cause me to abandon Apple products (it won't).

So I guess that make me rather tolerant, or maybe just indifferent. But I don't go around calling people bigots. Maybe I just have better manners. Or maybe I don't think hiding behind a keyboard gives me license to be uncivil.

And so you prove my point.

Anyone who calls the person they are debating with a bigot doesn't really want a debate or a discussion.

Are gay people who oppose polygamy and polyandry bigots?

By your reasoning, anyone who refused to tell the Nazis where any Jews were hiding was practicing censorship.

If I was the CEO, I would contact the said employee and let him/her know that if they couldn't work for Mozilla because I was the CEO, then I would gladly accept their resignations.

Well, that is up to you, but where does it end?

Let us assume that he is let go because of this. Why stop at the CEO? Why not the COO, the CIO and the CFO? And the management level below that? Soon, maybe we are demanding that companies audit their employees to make sure there are none whose views you find objectionable.

Why not go down all the way to the janitor? Basically, if anyone ever expresses a thought that is at odds with the contemporary thinking, they should be barred from any job, because, well, you don't want to support a company that employs bigots right? Because the CEO is just a job holder. He is doing a job which he was given, not because he passes some litmus test on his personal political views.

Why end there? Why not ask every potential employee what their views on every topic you might find objectionable to ensure that you don't employ the wrong sort of people?

I'd hate to live in a country where I am only allowed to earn a living if I have the correct thoughts and the correct political affiliations.

Your views are scary.

Sometimes I think "bigot" is the new "communist". Anyone who disagrees with the now accepted position is a bigot (which incidentally means you can't have a reasoned discussion with them).

MEPs are not only for election periods. They represent UK constituents throughout their term of office. While the UK populace may feel the EU parliament to be an irrelevancy and a nuisance, the representation of UKIP on air is entirely consistent with their electoral mandate. I for one would not want the BBC to be deciding on our behalf (or on anyone else's behalf) than the EU is irrelevant, and thus it is not necessary to give airtime to the UK's representatives to the EU.

Secondly, as I explained, UKIP chooses to have one strong personality representing their views on air. That is their prerogative. And if Question Time is going to represent politicians fairly, somewhat in proportion to their mandate, you are going to see Nigel Farage more frequently than other for the simple reason that his party chooses him to attend Question Time rather than any of their other MEPs.

I am not a UKIP supporter. But they do have more MEPs than the Greens. And they also have one really recognisable face, so you are going to see him more than you see an average MP from other parties.

No conspiracy here.