Slashdot Mirror
High Court Trims Whistleblower Rights
iminplaya writes "In yet another blow against free speech rights, the Supreme Court decided that government employees who report wrongdoing do not enjoy 1st Amendment rights while on the job. From the article 'The Supreme Court scaled back protections for government workers who blow the whistle on official misconduct Tuesday, a 5-4 decision in which new Justice Samuel Alito cast the deciding vote [...] The ruling was perhaps the clearest sign yet of the Supreme Court's shift with the departure of moderate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and the arrival of Alito. [...] Stephen Kohn, chairman of the National Whistleblower Center, said: "The ruling is a victory for every crooked politician in the United States."'"
Are China and the US becoming more and more like eachother nowadays? It's like this country is moving to a pseudo-communist form of government :(
If TJ was brought to the future, he'd hate the government as it stands in this point in time, but then again, he'd hate alot of other things with the government now too, like how damned big it is.
Viable Slashdot alternatives: https://pipedot.org/ and http://soylentnews.org/
Democracy works!
Bit by bit, it seems, that America is changing into something quite different than I was taught in school. Like the supreme court ruling that allows local governments to sieze your land for a better purpose as just one of many examples.
Was it just that I was young and naive and believed in a good country that stuck to its principles? That principles meant something to this country?
My only experience with federal employment is the military, and if you think we had any first amendment rights when it came to whistleblowing you are mistaken. Follow chain of command correctly, and get yourself singled out later on when you haven't done anything wrong. Granted civilians shouldn't really be treated like a volunteer military, they should be very careful on how they report wrong doing in the Federal Government. Lest they be singled out.
erin go bragh!
Wow. That statement has more bullshit in it than bulls have up their ass.
"The ruling is a victory for every crooked politician in the United States." as opposed to?
This country has been pushing out some of the strangest laws. Did the justices consider their ruling is likely to make someone think before reporting corruption. First it was the Bush administrations illegal wiretaps via the NSA, even though its not necessarily new news, now this. So what the current government has is a one two punch... If a whisteblower wants to report possible illegal activity, they may face the wraith of being tracked by the NSA, then the wrath of a justice system that's catering to criminals...
Infiltrated dot Net
The real shame of the Bush regime isn't all the crap he's pulled during his presidency. The real shame, as demonstrated by this latest attack on our "inalienable rights, " is that it's going to take us at least 20 years to undo the damage. I still can't believe we had the opportunity to say goodbye after the first four years but brought him back for four more.
So... wait... if your superior is doing something wrong, you aren't allowed to talk about it? The Supreme Court just broke my mind.
You would think it was the end of the world by the headline. From what I understood of the article government employees should behave like private sector employees. That is, if I shoot my mouth off at work I might get fired. This seems like a no brainer. The speech seems to directly relate to what is said at work, not what is said in public about work. Big difference.
The thing about free speech is this. Your words have consequences, which might include you losing your job. There is no first amendment guarantee to others not taking action against you because of your words.
Was quickly destroyed by Crooked Goverment employees, look at what the indians endured time and again by the same goverment. Don't get all supprised now, watergate isn't exactly ancient news. Its all "Business as usual" when Big business gets in the White House. Look at what Fema was hiding. Its a long toride affair with the elected president appointing his cronies to positions they are not qualified for then abuse. It happens every 4 years. Or 8 if you start a war.
Look that last president reduced my power to hide stuff from the people, lets fix that!!!!
You can say whatever you like, unless the government really, really doesn't want you to say it.
From the Wikipedia article:
Fascism is a radical authoritarian political philosophy that combines elements of corporatism, totalitarianism, extreme nationalism, militarism, anti-communism and anti-liberalism.
I think that this describes the current political situation in the USA pretty well.
My site
From the article, stripping away the spin and leaving in what Kennedy actually said:
....
.....
"We reject, however, the notion that the First Amendment shields from discipline the expressions employees make pursuant to their professional duties," Kennedy said.
Kennedy said if the superiors thought the memo was inflammatory, they had the authority to punish him.
"Official communications have official consequences, creating a need for substantive consistency and clarity. Supervisors must ensure that their employees' official communications are accurate, demonstrate sound judgment, and promote the employer's mission," Kennedy wrote.
Kennedy said that government workers "retain the prospect of constitutional protection for their contributions to the civic discourse." They do not, Kennedy said, have "a right to perform their jobs however they see fit."
Should government workers really be able to pass around accusatory memos with no ability to be fired? I thought it was already enough of a joke that if you worked for the government you were in for life. Do we not want government employees to be accountable for what they say if it is false?
Speech will still be protected if it is truly whistleblowing, and not just bitching.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
If you cut through The Constitution, you encircle it with lesser laws. What remains inside this "donut" therefore is rendered neutered and thus irrelevant.
Life is not for the lazy.
The idea that the first amendment allows government employees to speak without fear of discipline or termination is a huge stretch.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
The 1st amendment is a restriction preventing laws from being enacted which prevent freedom of speech. It does not, however, grant anybody a right to keep their jobs. It just means you won't be arrested after you're shown the door. The court ruling seems like common sense to me. It doesn't stop anybody from whistleblowing - but don't count on keeping your job if you do.
Can someone clarify this for me?
The Supreme Court scaled back protections for government workers who blow the whistle on official misconduct Tuesday, a 5-4 decision in which new Justice Samuel Alito cast the deciding vote...
So did the other eight vote, and then hold off for Alito, or what? How can you definitively say that Alito cast the deciding vote?
This seems like anti-Alito flamebait to me.
I got my Linux laptop at System76.
police state is about the measure of it.
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World" 1 John 4:14
You have no idea what the word "communist" means. Why don't you go look it up?
:P
:(
Read my post again next time
It's like this country is moving to a pseudo-communist form of government
Viable Slashdot alternatives: https://pipedot.org/ and http://soylentnews.org/
Thing is, and I'm no expert on this, but there is a *process* defined by law for whistleblowing. It's not going to your local neighborhood journalist to get your 15 minutes of fame for blowing the whistle to the press. Why? Because in blowing the whistle on illegal activity, you might also compromise perfectly *legitimate* state secrets. There is a chain of command, and if you feel you need to go outside the chain of command, there's other legitimate authorities to blow the whistle to (I suspect if you don't think you can blow the whistle to anyone in the executive branch, then you could go to a senator/congressperson from the minority party, and blow the whistle to them - I think congresspersons have a pretty bulletproof shield for then turning around and bringing it to the public's attention if necessary, or at least to the appropriate congressional committees for investigation; honestly, I don't know what is and isn't allowed, but there *are* whistleblower protection laws, for people who go about it properly).
If you really think the whole system top-to-bottom is so corrupt that *none* of the proper channels for internal government revue can be trusted, well, then I guess you have a choice to make. Practice civil disobedience (by going to the press) and (possibly) go to jail like a man, or not. See, people want to be all "I'm practicing civil disobedience" without *actually* breaking laws.
People might think this sounds crass, but what I'm saying is, in most cases, whistleblowers *can* and *should* work within the system, the legal framework, for whistleblowing without going to jail. If that is not possible, then by going to trial and going to jail, you will be shining a big old spotlight on the problem, and that too can serve the public good. But, if we said that anybody who claims to be whistleblowing can leak anything to the press, then we will be inviting an ever escalating flood of leaks.
when i read "National Whistleblower Center", i just had to google it. sounded like an SNL sketch. i know some of you will argue that noone has a right to keep their job, but this opens the door to legally squash anyone who might uncover your wrongdoing. also, it's not the same as a private company firing someone giving out trade secrets. we have a right to know what's going on in OUR govt. this point seems to be lost, the govt should be accountable to the public, not the other way around.
Nothing but news here. No editorializing in sight. Good thing Slashdot has standards.
"I have a good idea why it's hard to verify programs. They're usually wrong." --Manuel Blum, FOCS 94
.. but laugh at the hypoKrisy of
anti-Komunist
ameriKa
mod flamebait if needed but the truth is Cartman was right, America was built upon saying one thing and doing another. We preaches liberty and equality among sexes, but look.. Asians who are regarded to be less liberated have had Women Presidents. Wheres the All American Girl preaching in front of the stars and stripes? Liberty to An American means "the right to screw whoever i want to". You made your bed. Nobody is going to take you seriously while you have different women in it at different times of the day.
Heaven forbid we actually expect some personal responsiblity from people. The problem with many government employees is they usually cannot be fired without an enormous amount of wrangling. If they are reporting legitimate illegal/immoral/unethical activity, the evidence they present will put away the bad guys and allow them to keep their government jobs. Really I don't see how they have time for all that whistleblowin'. They have a full time job being annoyed with me for interrupting their daily routine with my request for a drivers license, permit, etc.
Mod parent up! Finally, someone with some reading comprehension skills...
But by all means, Slashdot Librulz, keep wallowing in your reactionary anti-US, Bush-hating ignorance.
Chicks dig it! Just ask Kasanova Kos!
I have more integrity in my left nut that Alito in his whole body, there you go, the man that pulled a con WITH HIS FAMILY present in front of a senate commision. Geez we need 4 more years with the republicans in power, Cheney + Whoever for 2008!!!!.
Reading the slip opinion, this case does not seem to be about retaliation for whistleblowing. A government employee was fired because his superiors believed his performance was inadequate, perhaps sparked by an argument over a possibly bad warrant.
All the Court seems to say here is that the memo that Ceballos wrote was not something he wrote as a civilian to "whistleblow," he wrote the memo as part of his job and could indeed be fired for it.
It'd be like getting fired for writing bad software...programmers can't claim their software is a communication protected by the 1st Amendment and then claim they can't be fired for it!
I suspect that one could still write "memos" and send them to journalists as a civilian and have those writings protected.
That whistleblower protection has been abused by employees. It's not uncommon for an employee catching wind of an upcoming termination to either fabricate or amplify some alledged wrongdoing then invoke whistleblower protection to save his/her ass.
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority. "We reject, however, the notion that the First Amendment shields from discipline the expressions employees make pursuant to their professional duties,"
But if Constitutional rights do not apply to employees of the government, then it is not a "government of the people". Up yours, Mr. Justice.
Hey thanks! And I just finished reading the opinion of the court. It's pretty narrowly defined. The concuring opinion is 16 of the 43 pages. This is not a bad ruling.
Cellabos got in trouble for sending a memo to his superiors with his findings after being assigned to investigate potential misconduct by the Sheriff's Department. When his superiors proceeded with the prosecution anyway he contacted the defense attorney, which was certainly in the interests of justice and maybe even ethically required (any criminal lawyers out there to kill that "maybe" one way or the other?).
To admit that the draft dodging liberal Republicans have won..... /. affect.
http://www.buffalobeast.com/99/policestate.htm
or
http://www.alternet.org/story/36553/
Same article just two links to spread the
I'm sorry, I'm to tired to be witty at the moment so this message will have to do.
Correction, her name is O'Connor, not O'Conner. Either way, I was talking about the one that wears the doiley around her neck.
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
No, it is called libel. The downing street memos along with other government documents clearly shows the current administration knowingly deceived the public. Whistleblowers who wish to truthfully disclose government corruption are now at the mercy of corrupted.
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be-T J
I say watch CNN and find out who's on the chopping block ...
As a federal employee, for the DoD no less, I'm all for it. Now I too have an excuse when I see corrupt behavior from my superiors. Before I would think, "being a public servant is different than being a corporate shill, I have to stand up for the general good rather than the corporate bottom line". Now as many slashdotters have eloquentyl put it, government workers are not held to higher standards than company workers.
If I see fraud, waste or abuse, I'll just keep in mind my performance-based pay (read: "suck up to the boss", just like in corporate america) and happily ignore it.
thanks!
The thing is that "slander" in the legal sense is a very heavy hammer to use against someone, and not a tool an employer can use against an employee bitching about another employee (only the person being maligned can bring suit). If an employee is out of control it should be OK to fire them. What if an employee is just negatively gossiping about people all the time? That can be a huge productivity drain on workers.
After that point, if the firing was indeed because of something they said that was truly protected 1st amendment speech, then they can sue and they can win. If they were fired though and want to trump up a claim why should our court system have to suffer through it any more than we have a million idiotic MPAA cases cluttering court dockets. America needs to have FEWER, not MORE, lawsuits.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Yet another sign of our loss of rights. Since when was it a good idea for people to be afraid to let us know when their government or company was doing something wrong? Once, I thought this country was biased on freedom. Innocence dies hard.
You obviously don't understand the full ramifications of the ruling, either. You now have the right to post truthful comments, but no protection against downmodding.
This space intentionally left blank.
Could you come up with a more biased article summary?? I thought this was slashdot, not libdot.
Whistleblowers who wish to truthfully disclose government corruption
Right, because most whistleblower like this nut bag from former US-Iraq Intelligence, this world is so much better keeping insane liberal media junkies with daily fix.
"Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
"We're legislating ourselves into becoming a third world nation."
Sadly, this applies far beyond this particular case, or even the original discussion on chemistry discussion at the other site.
The best way to predict the future is to create it. - Peter Drucker.
...acronyms spell YOU!
Whistle blowing is about public speech or other forms of letting outside entities know what's going on inside. From what I've read and heard about this case, it's about a subordinate criticising/commenting on the actions of a superior.
This is a bad thing unquestionably, but if anything, this ENCOURAGES whistleblowing by removing other forms and means by which to address a problem in an organization. Basically, in the course of doing your job, you cannot talk to your boss about it without fear of [allowabed] retaliation. The only options left to the person is by leaking and informing outside parties.
I hope this blows up in the administration's face.
If you read the details of the case, you'll see that Ceballos found out that a sheriff basically lied to obtain a search warrant. He wrote a memo about this and notified the defense attorney.
His boss forced him to rewrite the memo. The defense attorney subpoenaed him while attempting to have the case dismissed, but the prosecution deftly managed to prevent Ceballos from admitting on the record that the prosecutor's office knew about the lie and still went ahead with the prosecution.
You can find details about the case and tests used here.
What's frightening to me is that no one seems to be raising concerns about a prosecutor's office knowingly proceeding with a case that has been tainted. I guess it's now ok for all law enforcement officials to lie to obtain warrants.
-- Fugacity: Confusing chemists since 1908
The SCOTUS did not trim whistle blower rights today. They simply ruled that there is no constitutional reason why an employee who lies about his employer and negatively effects his work environment cannot be fired.
The liberal judges on the court ruled that this employee could not be fired. These are the justices you might refer to as liberal activist judges. They do not interpret the constitution, instead they legislate from the bench, acting as unelected super-Senators in creating law.
This is not the role of the court. The role of the court is to enforce the law of the land, and clearly there is no clause in the constitution that lets people wreck havoc on their employer without consequence. Therefore, there is no reason for the court to interfere on this legislative issue.
If you disagree with this ruling, there's a simple constitutional way to change things -- it's called winning elections, something liberals have been unable to do for quite a while now.
It goes without saying that sfgate.com is a Liberal publication. (does that word apply to web sites?) If anything, the headline gives their bias away. They could have titled it "Supreme court rejects rogue government employees claim to wistleblower status." That would, of course, reveal the opposite bias.
7 3.pdf
What troubles me is that their biased view is accepted by so many people without critical thinking. We are all very comfortable being manipulated, so long as the manipulation agrees with our world view.
To their credit, sfgate.com links to the actual judgement: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-4
I'll summarize (with my bias). Ceballos had a difference of opinion with his superiors about how to handle a case (he was a deputy district attorney for L.A. County). I don't see how this makes him a whistleblower. He wasn't revealing corruption. He disagreed with his boss(es) about the robustness of a search warrant affidavit. I imagine that happens all the time. I infer that he didn't handle this disagreement in a way that endeared him to his boss. His boss responded by transfering him, and denying him a promotion. These sound like reasoanble actions for a boss to take if he doesn't see eye-to-eye with an employee.
Anyway, the truth is out there. What good is intellectual freedom if we merely surrender the forming of our opinions to the media?
Considering how Sandra Day O'Connor was against the eminent domain decision last year -- truly one of the worst decisions of the last decade, if not longer -- along with the rest of the right leaning side of the bench, I hardly consider her departure has been replaced by someone that different overall than she is.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
It doesn't really prevent people from whistleblowing. It just says that a statement you make under the official capacity of your job is considered part of your job, not free speech, and is thus under the same restrictions/scrutiny of any other aspects of your work.
Does it make it a little harder to define something as legitimate "whisteblowing"? Probably. Is it the end of the world and the begining of an American police state? Probably not.
-------------------------------------------
I like nonsense, it wakes up the brain cells.
-- Dr. Seuss
I have questions about this ruling. But there seems too often be an assumption that a right means it is free. If the government doesn't pay to show my art it must be censorship.
Free speech has to exist in context of other aspects of society. There are whistle blowers who have good in mind and those that do harm for their own agenda.
Sometimes doing right has costs, at some point we have to leave the womb and be accountable for our actions.
in 1944 thousands of young men got on boats knowing thier job was to get 10 feet onto the beach at Normandy before being shot, so the guy behind them could get the next 10 ft.
Today.. we don't even want to put our job on the line for right? Mama Fed please protect me!! WAAAAA Pretty weak ass generation.
Oddly if some of the same standards some assume for the 1st amendment were applied to the 2nd. People would expect the government to buy them the guns and that when used there would never be a cost or consequence.
doing right isn't always safe... And the more people the learn that better off the next generation will be.
BTW When tanks run down protesters outside the White House and women are strapped down and forced to abort their children, then you can say we are like China. Right now you just who a profound narcissistic ignorance of the world with stupid statements like that.
So lets say, claiming that WMD was covered under "Freedom of Speech", hence all of those who cry foul are saying George Tenent and the Administration shouldn't be held accountable.
Can anybody translate this out of moronese for me? Let's see if we can diagram this sentence.
1. So lets say,
2. claiming that WMD was covered under "Freedom of Speech",
3. ?????
4. hence all of those who cry foul are saying George Tenent and the Administration shouldn't be held accountable.
Why would chemical and biological weapons be covered under free speech? Is this like how greenbacks passed to politicos is 'speech' now?
As much as we in New Zealand make regular fun of the United States and it's people (and the monkey in charge), and as much as we feel disgust and anger over the war-mongering and bullying tactics of your corrupt government, I am beginning to feel genuinely afraid for the welfare of the American people. This is a tradgedy, to see decline of the land of the free, and the birth of this new and frightening empire.
I truly hope the economic and political abomination which is now emerging falls much faster than Rome. I have little hope that the American people will do anything, or will even try. They are too sucked in by the corporate happy-face, too poorly educated in the true nature of the world, and too overwhelmed with fear at the hand of the war-maker's spin.
There was a time when I aspired to live in the United States. A land of opportunity as they used to say. Now it's the land of the spied upon, the land of continual corporate, military and religious conquest, the land of the un-free, the land of delusions.
Irrespective of "summary is flamebait!" and other "this is NOT a limit on first amendment rights!" comments, it seems like this puts a bit of a chill on anyone who speaks out about things. It doesn't matter about truth per se, but more perception - what people are going to think versus what's fact.
:^)
Of course maybe this is GW's way of getting set up to fire some ex Generals
it's called irony.
The parent poster was clearly being ironic, and I fail to see how people can miss that (unless you were being double ironic, but I somehow doubt that). Granted, some people recognise this sort of humor quicker than others, but at the time he gave the link to an *US ID* article, the irony should have been obvious to everybody (barring some bible-belt twats).
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
So lets say, claiming there was 'WMD's in Iraq' was covered under "Freedom of Speech", hence all of those who cry foul are saying George Tenent and the Administration shouldn't be held accountable.
Can anybody translate this out of moronese for me?
There you go, moron.
"Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
The role of the Gestapo was to investigate and combat "all tendencies dangerous to the State." It had the authority to investigate treason, espionage and sabotage cases, and cases of criminal attacks on the Nazi Party and on Germany.
... carries out the will of the leadership, it is acting legally." The Gestapo was specifically exempted from responsibility to administrative courts, where citizens normally could sue the state to conform to laws.
The law had been changed in such a way that the Gestapo's actions were not subject to judicial review. Nazi jurist Dr. Werner Best stated, "As long as the [Gestapo]
The power of the Gestapo most open to misuse was "Schutzhaft" or "protective custody" -- a euphemism for the power to imprison people without judicial proceedings, typically in concentration camps. The person imprisoned even had to sign his or her own Schutzhaftbefehl, the document declaring that the person desired to be imprisoned. Normally this signature was forced by beatings and torture.
If you work for the government and you witness or have indirect evidence of wrongdoing on the government's part, do not report it to your boss. He will most likely either fire you or demote you. Rather resign in protest then leak whatever information you have to the press. Or be quiet and pretend like nothing is happening. I have a feeling most people will pick the latter. In essence this will discourage most people from speaking up when they feel something illegal is going on in the government.
Corrupt Government 1 Citizens 0
The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
job^H^H^Hjab.
Constitutional law is rarely about the individual facts of a case. ie, Marbury v. Madison wasn't actually about whether Marbury was entitled to his commission as a federal judge, it was about whether the Court had the power of judicial review.
A more recent example - the opinion in the Newdow v. US case about the Pledge of Allegience had absolutely nothing at all to do with whether the pledge violates the establishment clause by using the phrase "under God." The court found that Newdow did not have standing to bring a case on behalf of someone else (his daughter) who was not herself alleging any sort of legal injury or wrong. There was a similar case where some animal rights activists got shot down bringing a case alleging future violations of their rights that hadn't even happened yet.
I don't think Constitutional law is very well understood by most Americans. The two classes I took on it on the way to my polisci degree were probably my favorite ones in all of college - it's a fascinating discipline.
Tell this to 40,000 iraqi civilians, and uncounted number of iraqi soldiers that were killed as a result of his actions. Tell this to 2700 american and coalition soldiers dead, to 1000 dead in New Orleans, and to the families of those who died.
Some of the "crap he's pulled" can not be undone, not even in 20 years. Please don't underestimate Bush's crap, even with the damage to the "inalienable rights".
I sometimes wonder "how they sleep at night". Is it easy to tell yourself that the thousands of people killed where all for the best, and it all had to be done? I guess the world has known far greater evil, and they all slept well.
Reading your comment makes me think you want the government to do anything it wants ? Power corrupts; Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
The USA Elite's puppets on the Supreme Court earned their dog biscuits today. "Sit Fido" - "gooood dog". Lets see the "score" so far:
a) La Plume is outed by Puppet #1 (Bush) - from her C.I.A. job because Hubby tells world Saddam no got the goodies to make the Big Bomb. Puppet #1 (Bush) didn't like "looking" like a liar. Plume's Hubby didn't self-censor.
b) USA Elite's puppets are now listening to all phone calls in the USA, reading all emails in the USA - will citzens start to self-censor themselves - you bet. Elites would love to find the federal employee who outed Puppet #1 (Bush) on the above - a one way CIA helicopter ride 200 foot over ocean?
All the major media New York Times et al - how does one spell self censor?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." - The U.S. Constitution
"Under the Senate bill, approved without objection by the House with no recorded vote, the "Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act" would bar protests within 300 feet of the entrance of a cemetery and within 150 feet of a road into the cemetery from 60 minutes before to 60 minutes after a funeral. Those violating the act would face up to a $100,000 fine and up to a year in prison." - CNN
I'm not a fan of these jackasses who are making their point at military funerals. But isn't this type of thing exactly what the government is NOT supposed to be allowed to do?
It's pseudo because they don't call themselves communist.
Ignore this signature. By order.
By comparing the savage inequalities of power and wealth in communist nations such as Cuba and North Korea with "income inequality" non-issues of freer nations, I can only conclude that you're mentally ill.
Iraq sure doesn't look very "conquored" to me.
Where's all the oil we have supposedly "stolen"?
Now that we have 2 conservative Ivies in the Supreme Court, this wasnt a surprising decision. Guess Miers wouldnt have been a bad decision, given how The Yalito and Roberts (by association in going to an Ivy) have now put themselves firmly in the side of that was feared if an unanointed non-Ivy was put in.
The only thing lower than any lawyer(even SCO) is now officially these two in the Supreme Court. If the standards are low enough to admit these kind of people to supposed "high standard" universities, it seems that they might as well have admitted 30,000 domestic students in a need-blind, merit-blind, fully-open admission policy to these places.
Can we have back a Nixon, if only for the known dislike for those of the Ivy persuasion?
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
(1) A private employee's statements to his employer are not protected by the First Amendment. (If you go on TV and call your boss an asshole, he can fire you and you are NOT protected by the first amendment.)
(2) The government CANNOT stop citizens from bringing up issues in the public interest.
Which brings us to this case...
The majority of the court simply said that in this case, the petitioner was acting in his official duties and falls in category (1) and not category (2). Federal whistleblower laws etc... might protect him, but he has no CONSITUTIONAL right of action under the First Amendment.
Before you go crazy and mod me down, take a moment to read the opinion. IMHO it's a quite reasonable outcome.
His signature follows bills in Kentucky and Ohio regulating funeral protests in response to the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, after they said American military deaths are God's retribution for tolerance of gay people.
Search google news or read the article here
There's a difference between speech and active disruption of lawful activity; the first is protected and the second is not. Also, the First Amendment is able to accomodate reasonable time & place restrictions. The question will be whether these restrictions go too far. In any case, these protestors are about as despicable and hate filled as they come.
A capitalist society that embrace large companies and monopolies (with ever stronger "IP" laws) and weakened anti-trust laws is moving towards a kind of feudalism.
EU is actually moving (incredibly slowly, and with many backslashes) the opposite direction, from a feudal economy dominated by national monopolies and trust, into a competitive European market backed by strong anti-trust legislation.
However, I agree that the article's statement is stupid. A justice can change his mind at any time prior to when the opinion is actually handed down. Also, I have no idea how religiously the above procedure is actually followed, and even if it were, it doesn't really imply that Alito cast the deciding vote, just potentially the last vote. Let me just add a disclaimer and say I am not a lawyer, have no special knowledge of the SOCUS, and that all my knowledge of the above procedure comes from a wiki article and a speech I heard on c-span given by Justice Thomas.
If Thomas Jefferson was brought to the future, he'd probably be arrested for smoking weed.
---
"The chances of a demonic possession spreading are remote -- relax."
The date was January 30, 2006. The day it became clear to anyone with eyes to see and a mind open to comprehension that the United States is now, at best, a one-party state.
Maria Cantwell's name is in boldface because I made the mistake of voting for that bitch, half a dozen years ago.
Ye Gods, even wretched Hillary Clinton, who stands for nothing beyond her own personal aggrandizement, voted "No".
This only restricts the exercise of free speech *in the performance of duty*. If employers could not restrict what employees said in the performance of duties, you could have "The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" going out as an official government memo, and there would be little that could be done about it. Employers need to be able to restrict the speech of their employees while in an official capacity.
Even apart from enshrining racist forgeries as official government memos, not being able to restrict official speech makes it virtually impossible to enforce any sort of protocol. Without established, enforced, and respected protocol the entire chain of command, unity, and general discipline will break down and the organization will founder. The ability to restrict official speech is critical to this.
This ruling strikes a good balance. Makes it clear that you can't simply say anything *in an official capacity*, where you should be representing the interests of those who hired you, while leaving your rights to speak as your own person untouched.
See that's the thing about the rights in the Constution, they are limits on the government, not on the people. The first ammendment says that congress shall make no law, it does not say anything about private citizens. As a simple example, if you are in my house and start insulting me, I can kick you out. I can restrict your speech in my house. Your right to freedom of speech is NOT a right to be heard by me, and is not a right to use my property to express yourself.
Same goes for work and includes all the other rights. Your workplace can ban you from carrying a gun on the premises, though it's legal. Your workplace may search your desk or computer for any reason, it's their property and so on.
The framers recognised a clear difference between the government doing something and private citizens doing it. The govenment operates by fiat, they can force you to do or not do something. Not true of other citizens. Though I can restrict your speech on my property, I cannot do it generally. You are still free to speak your mind at your house, or in a public park, and I just have to deal with it no matter how much I hate what you are saying.
However that does not absolve you of responsability for your actions. I can decide I'm pissed off at you and refuse to ever let you in my house again. You can't demand I do, just because you are now being nice to me.
So that's what poeple mean by you are free but not free from consequences. You are free to speak your mind, be an asshole, whatever. The government is not allowed to jail you for that. However private citizens can decide they don't want to associate with you because of that, and they do have freedom of association. They have the freedom to tell you to go packing. Your actions can being consequences in that regard.
The idea is a large amount of individual freedom.
> Speech will still be protected if it is truly whistleblowing, and not just bitching.
What a load of crap. Go over to the memory hole and read about how the FBI fired her because she called bullshit on some blatant problems where she worked. In response to here wrongful termination lawsuit the government claimed "this can't go to trial because it would expose state secrets".
Can someone enlight me, why one vote out of 5 was deciding and the others who voted the same way are not?
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
It is still in moronese, unless you got the quotes in the wrong place.
And how does saying "there are WMDs in Iraq" get covered in this? You are completely free to say this. When someone looks and finds no WMDs, they are free to say "You're wrong". If you said "there are WMDs" under oath, then you can be done for perjury for saying it - not because you said it, but because YOU ARE WRONG. Lying under oath = perjury. Nothing to do with freedom of speech (it isn't "Freedom of lying" - such as lying about there being fire in a cinema).
You have such a boner trying to call everyone you don't like a liberal and spouting off vitriol, your brain (at least the higher functions - should you have any) seems to have been bypassed.
One of these decisions will effect the internet and gaming industry in a way that stops all nerds and makes them rise up to fight against this, but until then I'm reading webcomics and later on I am gonna go play some DoD: Source.
As vast as The Greatness of America is, it can be destroyed by the failure of the people in charge to have some intelligence, altruism, and to strip power away from the people and transfer it over to themselves. We have a President who has expressed contempt for the whistleblower who outed his violations of the 4th Ammendment and a Supreme court that is becoming an extension to the executive branch. Don't protect politicians breaking the law! Advocate Whistleblower rights!
Over the past 40 years I have lived in the Czech Republic, Australia, America, and now Austria. I have seen repressive governments and efforts of citizens to defeat it. I have seen protectionist governments and the efforts of citizens to enhance it. I have seen clueless governments and the astounding apathy of citizen inhabitants. I remember when the US was commonly thought to be the best place in the world to live. And I remember all the efforts my parents made to get US citizenship for my family.
This recent decision of the Supreme Court of the US isn't going to instantly change the US into a regime more repressive than North Korea (despite what the left says the right is claiming). But it will make government whistle blowers think a fair bit more or more likely be a lot more cautious when they decide to go public. This is just one more little thing the government does to keep people in line and to keep secret things secret. I find it interesting that these days more & more unsavory things are kept secret.
But still as a few raving conservatives have pointed out America is not worse than North Korea or China. So I suppose the events ongoing within the American civil system can be compared to those events that went on during the "Second Red Scare" in the 1950's, only now it's terrorists, gays, free thinkers, and non-Christians. I didn't live in the US then but I assume that McCarthyism did not affect most Americans or should I say if 1950's Americans are anything like 2000's Americans I doubt most even recognized how what was going on was wrong until their children learned it in school. McCarthyism went on for about 5 years but I fear this new scare will last longer... maybe we should call it the "Long Nebulous Scare".
I wonder when the low point of this new scare will be, I'm getting sick of it already. I'm tired of clueless conservatives, reactionary liberals, rapacious capitalists, and the American theocrats. I'm tired of the vitriolic deception spewing from the mouths of the American political activists.
"Not as Bad as North Korea" may be good enough for them... but it damn sure isn't good enough for me.
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
as described by the owner of the chains
> Speech will still be protected if it is truly whistleblowing, and not just bitching
Sure, but who decides what's bitching and what's 'true' whistleblowing?
It sure seems like this guy was reprimanded for crossing the line between responsibility and advocacy. It is very common that a "situation" looks different at one level than another. This person was an employee of the DA's office and actively subverted that office. It's not his role or perogative to take this type of action. Had he quit his job and then pursued support of the defense, it would have been legal.
This guy's action would be very similar to tipping off drug dealers about impending raids if the guy thought hte drug in question should be legal.
There's no surprise here and the SFGate article is monstrously misleading.
There is no such thing as First Amendment protection for government employees on their job or related to knowledge they've gained on the job. There never has been. Ask anyone who has been in the military.
"Whistleblower" is a very specific case of protected speech. This guy wasn't a whistleblower. He didn't follow the proper channels and actively helped the opposition of the office where he was employeed.
That's still a broken sentence, dipshit. Try removing the comma after "say," and adding "that", and you'll finally have something that's not gibberish. Jesus Christ, if you're going to give a smart-ass answer, at least make it a smart-ass answer. Trying to smack me down as stupid doesn't work if you fuck up your correction.
*disclaimer* I have yet to read the opinion and refuse to state my OWN opinion before READING what the court ACTUALLY said..
7 3.pdf
Here it is...that is, unless you've decided to make up your mind without research.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-4
It's really disappointing that /. would choose to publish a story that sounds like it was published straight from a DNC press release, or from the pen of Michael Moore. Notice how all the quotes and opinions offered are from the dissenters. Other than a short snippet from the majority opinion out of SCOTUS, you're not hearing the other side of this at all.
/. history if the mod squad figures out how to do it. I've got karma to burn; do your worst.
This is another example of those with a soap box using it to advance their personal political beliefs rather than giving you all sides of a controversy and trusting you to be smart enough to decide for yourself. (i.e. the old "when we want your opinion we'll give it to you" approach)
Of course because I dared to critique a one-sided pro-liberal story here, I will be the first person modded -3 Troll in
. . . to our Supreme Court "Justices" for fucking the Constitution in the ass yet again.
I too have felt the cold finger of injustice.
I was watching an old (1946) information film about democracy and despotism , and it is scary that some of the indicators that they mention about a contry heading to despotism are coming true.
scary
What a crock. SDO would have voted along with this, claiming a "compelling state interest" overrules individual rights, just like she had so many times before...
The ruling is a victory for every crooked politician in the United States
Is there any other kind of politician other than crooked? I guess maybe first term politicians might be naive but they must be crooked to get into office to start with.
government employees who report wrongdoing do not enjoy 1st Amendment rights while on the job
... let's see. I can tell the public about this hazardous nuclear power plant and lose my job and possibly go to jail OR I can keep my mouth shut and let many people suffer.
... if the government is screwing up who is supposed to hold them accountable??? If there is wrongdoing or misconduct the only people who know about it will be the govt. workers.
.....
Hmmmm
I know it is a far-fetched notion but c'mon
Sometimes the "chain-of-command" just does not work and a person is left with no alternative to appease his conscience but to tell someone with enough visibility to get some action.
If this keeps up the next thing you know, the government will be tapping our phones and recording what we look for on the internet. Ummm
>>I imagine you'll be voting Quayle/Chenney in '08
I can't speak for LK, but as for me, if the Democrats actually nominate Hillary Clinton, I'll do my best to vote in whoever the Republicans want. Chuck Norris, Santa Claus, Hitler, a lifetime hereditary appointment of GWB, you name it. That's only a slight exaggeration.
Humor aside, I want a bipartisan ticket. It'll never happen, but I'd probably be content with a McCain/Leiberman ticket or something similar. Certainly better than anything else we're going to see in 2008, if still far from ideal.
I still have slim, naive hopes that the fallout from the upcoming 2008 electoral bloodbath will empower a third political party...
A preposition is a terrible thing to end a sentence with.
Or is it /Kos?
News for Nerds. Stuff That Matters - NOT hysterical hand-wringing reactionary rants.
This isn't about whistleblower protection, it's about 1st Amendment protection. Who here thinks they have the constitutional right to go spout off about your employer to the press, regardless of whether they are right or wrong? Eh? Do you really understand the first amendment at all?
No. Whistleblower protection laws != 1st Amendment. We can chase the whistleblower protections at other levels but lets not lose sight of the constitution while doing it.
-- "In order to have power, I must be taken seriously." -Mojo Jojo
Is there any easy way to immigrate out of the U.S.? It seems no matter what, that there's no way to have a revolution here, with the majority either too comfortable, too complacent, or too afraid to act. So the alternative is to get out (as the freeper variety constantly demand anyone even moderately left of far right do), in order to regain any minor form of freedom.
However, from what research I've done, it seems that nobody wants to let Americans escape. Sure, if I came off a boat from China or Cuba, I have a better chance of getting into any other country, but if I tried immigrating from the U.S. to Canada, I'd need a sponsor, at least a years worth of money to live off of, even as what qualifies as a "skilled laborer" (in this case, cartoonist/artist). Essentially it seems pretty unfair that someone fresh off the boat without a penny to their name can get in without question, but if someone wants to legally immigrate from the US, they have to cough up almost $20K USD.
Ironic, since one would think that supposedly more liberal countries would jump at the opportunity to absorb liberals who've gotten tired of living in this virtual gulag of a nation.
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
The amusing aspect of this is that we as society were conditioned to believe that Communism == all the totalitarian, oppresive aspects of society that had manifested themselves in the Soviet Union, and that what made us a great alternative were our precepts of intellectual and personal freedom. So what's really funny is that you (along with several generations of misled Americans) have equated Capitalism == 'freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of movement, freedom of choice.' You've all been the victims of a bait-and-switch. In reality, one's economic system probably doesn't have all that much to do with one's civil liberties and rights. It just happened to be so that we had Capitalism and the Soviets had Communism, while we had freedom and they had totalitarianism. Now without their totalitarianism to compare against our freedom, and without any logical counterweight to the power in our system, it's tilting quite naturally to the natural state of all systems where too much power is concentrated in the hands of those who feel they answer to no one.
My book, podcast
Don't have rights? Well, if they don't know what sort of traffic you're sending, why not join AnoNet and get the word out?
http://anonetnfo.brinkster.net/
So this means that the Supreme Court, which was our last hope of defense against the insanity of this administration, is now firmly in the administration's pocket.
BushCo now owns all 3 branches of government. That whirring noise would be the founding fathers spinning in their graves.
End of lesson. You may press the button.
It is obvious from most of the commentary here that virtually no one commenting on this decision have actually read and understood it. Typical.
LK wrote:
> I'm a two time Bush voter.
After reading the whole thread with the rest of LK's replies I think that I begin to see what the real problem with the US is.
Education
Seems that the two major parties finally managed to ensure the populace is dumb enough to fall for empty slogans and quash all semblance of a thought process come election day.
The only solution I can see is requiring a person to pass a critical thinking test before they are allowed to vote.
LK wrote:
> Because the other constitutional rights are not under constant assault.
As long as there are cordoned "free speech zones", the 1st amendment is safe.
Lets see -- "Honey you need to lay of the chocolate a little bit" results in sleeping on the couch. Words definitely have consequences. You say your employer is up to no good, employer fires you, some other employer who realises that you were telling the truth takes you in. Only in this case, the next employer is still another 2 years away. And the whole appointment of Alito *WAS* to keep the conservative sway in the judiciary. There we go - field is set, America is ripe for the taking. So if you are not a conservative flag-flying gay-hater dumb schmuck, then you probably have something to worry about.
Everyone I talk to didnt vote for him - how is he in office
Mod this guy up, if only for having read a summary of the case before posting . . .
So this articles point is?
1) See I told you this would happen.
2) See it has started.
3) Are you angry enough today? No? Good 'cus here is some more bad news.
Please categorize these posts under stupid right wing tricks, manditory protestant prayer time, or people wake the fuck up.
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
fascism - A governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
1. We're not a dictatorship
2. Bush certainly isn't forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism
3. We're a capitalist society. The government doesn't control industry.
4. Nationalism isn't necessarily bad, unless it goes to extremes, which we haven't
5. I haven't seen any signs of racism in the current administration
Its really sad when I have to scroll this far down through the usual facist state declaring nitwits to find a decent summary of the case, let alone someone who seems to have read the majority opinion.
someone please mod this guy up.
The notion that ultimately, public servants work for "the people", is valid - but at the same time, doesn't automatically imply that they can bypass a "chain of command" that has been set up. In the private sector, it's somewhat like a chain of businesses that are ultimately owned by a group of investors, but managed day-to-day by hired management. Said investors are completely uninvolved in the daily workings of the business chain, and trust in the people hired to manage the assets for them.
If a counter-person working at one of the chains came knocking on an investor's door, uninvited, and demanded to speak with him about something he felt was unfair, do you think he'd be welcome to do that?
I tried to make sense of the ruling, and I agree with one of the other posters here who said he's not really sure what the outcome will be. The Slashdot summary makes it sound really bad for individual rights, but the ruling itself sounds like it's trying to ensure govt. workers do the jobs they're paid to do with less ability to file frivolous legal complaints. (It's made clear that their 1st. ammendment rights aren't being "taken away", but rather, limited in ways the court felt appropriate to their circumstances.)
recently introduced provincial whistleblower law
And the federal law
---
"I can't complain, but sometimes still do..." Joe Walsh
Sure, but who decides what's bitching and what's 'true' whistleblowing?
The courts, if someone is fired then they can file a case on 1st amendment grounds for violation of free speech. Then the employee and employer get a chance to explain their actions.
Remember, just because someone does in fact expose something to the public at one point does not gaurantee them permanent employment until the end of time. Circumstances later may well lead them to lose a job for other reasons.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You're sane and informed, why are you here?
More to the point is, why am I STILL here. There used to be a lot more like me around.
I cannot believe the level of chicken-littleness that has struck Slashdot, where people are not taking the time to examine anything anymore to see what is really happening. Personally I blame crazy leakage from Digg which is even worse in this regard. I would say Slashdot is supposed to be for more lengthy, reasoned discussions - and that's with stories that sit on the front page only a day!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
When someone becomes a "whistleblower", all they do list their claims that are then investigated. If they claims are false, nothing happens.
Ex nihilo nihil fit.
Imagine a governmental employee sees something shady, but isn't positive of their interpretation of the event, so they send an email to a coworker discussing the incident. Under this ruling, they could be fired for the email!
I encounter things like that in my own job from time to time - often we avoid using email and instead use the phone or talk in person for just that reason.
Why should government employees be exempt from taking similar care over sensitive situations? Making sure all your ducks are in a row before bringing accusations forth is employment 101. Without facts you are just rumormongering.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Isn't the term "crooked politician" redundant?
When someone looks and finds no WMDs, they are free to say "You're wrong". If you said "there are WMDs" under oath, then you can be done for perjury for saying it - not because you said it, but because YOU ARE WRONG.
Being wrong vs. being deceitful are two seperate conducts. To say one is lying under oath is to say one presumptuously knows the truth yet falsely speaking. To say one is flat out wrong such as this case, you'd call me out and say I'm being dumb, stupid, idiotic, falsely informed, spouting off vitriol yet not lying.
it isn't "Freedom of lying" - such as lying about there being fire in a cinema.
Freedom of Speech does not stop someone from saying "it's the end of the world." I'm crossing the fine line here between believable truth vs. "no one gives a crap" truth. Those conspiracy theorists know this very well. Conspiracy theorists mix up bits of believable truth with nut bag evidence into a story to falsely mislead the public. What's the difference? George Tenent vs. some nut job from Ohio.
you don't like a liberal and spouting off vitriol
Yeah, that must be it.
"Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
I'd say that's a matter of opinion. ;)
I've also read the ruling and I think it's a bad one. It seems to make too much of a distinction between whistleblowing and normal job related communications and says that the former is protected while the latter is not. This ignores the fact that the whole reason that we have whistleblower protections is to protect employees from retaliation for doing their jobs.
It seems to me that this will create a situation where employees will either keep quiet if the determine that speaking up is not worth the risk, or they will declare themselves whistleblowers for even minor problems in order to make sure their behinds are well covered. There will be no middle ground.
Also, while I can appreciate the majority opinion that employers have some right to restrict employee speech during the performance of normal job duties, I question whether that is more important than protecting emloyees from retaliation from their superiors.
Needless to say, I'm against this on general principle but also because I am a federal government employee. Anyone who has witnessed the kind of political BS that is a normal part of federal employment knows that it is already difficult enough bringing attention to real problems. We need more protection, not less.
From the ruling
When I read this, it's seems pretty sensible. Say you're working for BestBuy, and you tell a customer that the widescreen TV they're looking at is actually a refurb being sold at full price. You just blew the whistle on your boss while on his time.
This ruling states that BestBuy ( if it were a public company as in a truly communist state ) could discipline you for undermining the company while being paid to represent the company. No one argues that this is BestBuy's right. The same goes with the LA Attorney General's office. If you are subpenoed to talk about a case, that doesn't make it your job to hand over physical evidence that would torpedo the case. Your job is to talk about the case. You can even talk about the memo you wrote, but the memo is the official property of the AG's office. The onus is on the defense then to subpenoa the memo itself as evidence.
It clearly looks like this Deputy DA overstepped his authority here. That sounds shitty, but I'm not advocating his silence. But if he wanted a protected way to let the defense know the police broke the law, he could have done it in some way as a private citizen and the Supreme Court would probably not have bothered to hear the case, letting stand the ruling in favor of the Deputy.
#-#
Ad Astra Per Aspera
A rough road leads to the stars
In other words, these events could go either way: fizzling out like McCarthyism, or blowing up like an atomic bomb into full-blown fascism.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Ok, that's it. You, me, after school, by sandbox! Grammar Nazi Punk!
you'll finally have something that's not gibberish.
you'll finally have something that's not a gibberish.
Jesus Christ, if you're going to give a smart-ass answer, at least make it a smart-ass answer.
Jesus Christ! If you're going to give a smart-ass answer, at least,you should try to make it a smart-ass answer.
Trying to smack me down as stupid doesn't work if you fuck up your correction.
Trying to smack me down as stupid doesn't work, if you fuck up your correction.
Yeah, both can play the same game, child.
"Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
"I guess it's now ok for all law enforcement officials to lie to obtain warrants."
You see, it's called "trickle down" justice. First, the president breaks the law and basically says warrants don't matter, then, it kind of flows down from there.
You just picked the wrong country to rip on, sheep-boy. The US may be too busy right now to manage another large-scale war, but I don't think New Zealand will present much of a problem. You'd better start learning how to shoot or surrender.
Look forward to some new guests soon. And remember, you brought it on yourself.
(BTW, I'm kidding.)
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
This is a good thing for government workers, since it will help them avoid buying into the fantasy that they'll be protected if they put ethics first.
Whistleblowing is in many cases about going public. You can report it in-house if you want, but you stand a chance of getting fired. Hell, if there's something bad enough to be classified as "whistleblowing" when reported, would you want to be around at the same employer after you report it? Even if they don't fire your ass for that, they'll surely manage to drum up something else.
In the grand scheme, whether or not your job goes up might not be the big issue. The big issue is whether you can be fined, imprisoned, etc for reporting government corruption? Personally, if I reported (to the monitoring bodies, authorities, then papers, etc) that dept X was cleaning out senior citizen pensions for golf money, poisoning kids in the ghetto, and/or various other offenses, I'd still expect to be fired... but by that time I'd also expect to have quit. Now if dept X could also sue my ass for reporting them, and/or have me sent to the slammer... that's a bigger issue.
How could non-reproducing eusocial creatures such as drone bees develop if evolution only promoted competition? Evolution works on the level of the species and selects for traits that help the entire species survive. Cooperation is the most effective strategy whenever there is both local abundance and local scarcity, which is most of the time in this world. Competition is only most effective in cases of absolute abundance or absolute scarcity.
Look at anthropological studies of tribes that have had little contact with western culture. You will find they are cooperative in nature, non-violent and non-competative. This is the largest part of our original nature, and our competative side is very small.
Where did violence and competition come from, then? Here's one theory. Yes, James DeMeo was a student of notable weird dude Wilhelm Reich, but his scholarship is impeccable. His theory is that violence originated when we developed agriculture, settled down, built up a surplus and a more complex society, then got hit with massive climate change and famine. Before that, when famine hit, we just moved on. When the Sahara, the middle east, and central asian regions dried up, people had the surplus and organization to move on their more fortunate neighbors en-mass. At first said neighbors took them in, but as the climate change accelerated, they became unable to help. For the first time in history, masses of humans fought other humans.
You had a generation of post traumatic parents raising a geenration of brain damaged children (starvation does that to a kid.) This locked that small violent, competative part of our nature permanently into our culture. It is as if we are in permanent famine mode. But it is not the entirety of our nature.
DeMeo's proof is complex and thorough. He researched nearly 3,000 cultures worldwide, and found a clear pattern. The further a culture originates from the epicenter of violence, the less heirarchal, violent, and competative traits it has. Unless you are completely attached to your worldview about the origins of human violence, I suggest at least reading the summary with an open mind. Perhaps what he says is true, perhaps not, but it at least gives a different theory than "Nature, red in tooth and claw," which is unsatisfactory to me as it does not account for all the evidence.
As Lao Tzu said,
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
No, "historical amnesia" is comparing the United States's immigration policy, its soldiers' actions in Abu Ghraib, its use of Guantanamo Bay, or its intervention in Iraq to 19th-20th century European pogroms or to South America's purges. For pity's sake, show some respect for the millions of people burtally murdered in those travesties. Then again, if Britt's idea of a good dictionary definition to include with an essay is of the form, "foobar: a thing resembling a foobar," then how much should anyone really expect from a definition he came up with himself? Yeesh...
patriotic nationalism
I don't see how these can be used in the same sentence. At least as far as the US is concerned, I view patriotism as the protection of the principles that grant the freedom and checked government that were intended by the founding fathers. Nationalism, on the other hand, is a sense of mindless allegiance to the state. Nationalism and patriotism are at opposite ends of the same spectrum.
Fuck... That's comforting
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
We've had some accountability issues here in Canada. In fact, our new Prime Minister campaigned with promises of increased government accountability. It would seem that we want more whistleblowers.
Though, this example is provincial, not federal, it seems that Canada is taking steps in the opposite direction. After the recent sponsorship scandal, and (here in Manitoba) the Crocus Investment Scandal, there has been a serious push for whistleblower protection.
No word yet on what Harper is actually going to implement (sounds like he's under a mountain of recommendations). But given that he hasn't even had power for a year, I think he has some time.
I suppose if you go by "Congress shall make no law..." then it would be perfectly acceptable for the President to issue an executive order declaring all political dissent punishable by imprisonment. But that makes an end run around the principle behind the free speech/press/assembly/petition for redress clauses of the first amendment, which is simple:
The government should not be allowed to punish people for speaking out in ways that the government does not like.
Arguing that punishments outside the judicial system, or punishments declared by another branch of government, are perfectly OK, seems to violate the spirit of the clause.
in direction of being reduced to slave labor.
And it seems that noone is taking to the streets to protest. What the heck is this ? Have you lost 1774 spirit forever ?
Read radical news here
The next time someone says to you;
"The constitution isn't a suicide pact."
The appropriate response is:
"Give me Liberty or give me death!"
The next time someone says to you;
"that's pre-9/11 thinking."
The appropriate response is:
"that's pre-1776 thinking."
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Serbia, Iraq, Syria, and Aghanistan. You can look it up.
You mean the NATO bombing campaign in Serbia? That was an allied act. The others, eh, not so much. They were however limited strikes and not an all out war and cannot be compared to what went on in Iraq and against so much world sentitment. Some of us do believe in military policing action but not in all out invasion, especially as poorly planned out as this one was.
I'm just playing devil's advocate. Clinton intentionally turned his back on China's human rights violations, which include ACTUAL torture and transmigration (killing off the male population, colonizing and breeding a people out of existence).
I'm really unhappy with Clinton putting globalization and business interests over human rights too, but are you suggesting that what went on in Abu Ghraib wasn't "ACTUAL" torture?
Devil's Advocate, huh? Okay, well I might could swallow that position if your argument didn't rest on what went on in Abu Ghraib not being torture.
I mean, okay, maybe in your sick mind being stripped naked, forced to simulate sex acts with other men, and being leashed and collared like a dog isn't all that torturous, but a lot more went on there. Some of the sexual degradation included being forced to masturbate while on video tape, being forced to stand naked and hooded on boxes for days, and an reported case of a female prisoner being raped. The degradation and humiliation is stomach churning. There's an image out there of a man being forced to walk a straight line by a female officer while naked, covered in feces, and with bound ankles.
In additions there were repeated beatings and attacks with fist and blunt objects. One of the described attacks was a sergeant punching a man so hard in the chest that he almost went into cardiac arrest. People were threatened with dogs and there was at least one report of a detanee actually being attacked and severely wounded by a dog.
There were prisoners who died in the "care" of the guards responsible for the torture. The most famous is Manadel al-Jamadi whose ice-packed corpse was made famous thanks to an image of Specialist Charles Graner posing and giving a thumbs-up over it. He died after a half-hour interrogation that involved suspending him by his wrists from a barred window while his wrist were bound behind his back. What killed him was a blood clot from the vicious beating he took during his interrogation.
Are the "soldiers" involved doing hard time for murder? Of course not, they've been handed a slap on the wrist related to what a civillian would've gotten for that kind of crime. Heck, drug smokers and shoplifters sometimes get harsher sentences than these sociopathic animals got. While Chinese excesses are really bad, don't think that we've been angels. You cannot excuse our behavior by saying that the Chinese are worse. That's like saying that Saddam's an okay guy because he didn't kill as many of his own people as Pol Pot did.
The fact that we have apologists for Abu Ghraib and that they're not uncommon shows that we are in one of the darkest periods of American history. What killed your sense of outrage?
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
You're going to get flamed to hell and back on Slashdot for saying that. That said, I agree with you completely and I've also voted for Bush twice.
Al Gore is a single-minded environmental whackjob, as far as I can see. Fark is linking to an article about his new film (about how the world is going to end tomorrow because I drive a gas powered car) stating that there are lies in the film, that Al Gore *knows* there are lies in the film, and that he doesn't care because it serves a "higher purpose." Uh, what? So Gore just purposely puts himself in the footsteps of Michael Moore? Great move, there.
The second election I look at like this (complete with simplified New Math):
Most of the people voting *for* Kerry were actually voting *against* Bush and not necessarily for anything. Let's say that 75% of the Kerry voters were just voting against Bush. That means that only 25% of Kerry voters wanted Kerry in office. On the other hand, 100% of those who voted for Bush actually want Bush in office, and Bush gets 50% of the votes.
So we could either have a President that 50% of the voters actually wanted, or a President that only 12.5% of the voters actually wanted... makes more sense to go with the majority decision and vote for Bush in this situation.
Comment of the year
Like most things reported, the reporter is way out of his understanding of the breadth of this ruling...and has taken the sensationalistic viewpoint to cover his lack of understanding. If you read the opinion and the dissents, you will find that the opinion is very narrowly defined and in no way reinteprets free speech, it just clarifies the difference between private speech and public speech and the affect of protections for those classifications.
Okay, now turn that argument into a defense of the government being allowed to punish employees for their speech. Be sure to consider the 14th Amendment in any such argument for your speech being allowed to have penalties. Also, be sure to defend the public interest in keeping whisteblowers from exposing government corruption / ineptitude.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
1st Amendment protection would imply that they have the discretion to not speak. Since public employees swear to uphold the the Constitution, laws, regulations, etc. they ARE obligated to speak up about abuses.
Unfortunately, the ruling does not come to the same conclusion.
The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
That sounds like what you're saying....that it's up to the defense to turn on their "psychic" abilities, read the tea leaves or whatever and realize that they've been misled. To ignore unethical behavior because "it's not your job" or "your problem" is apathy of the worse degree. Ignoring the abuses done to others is living life with on the edge of that proverbial slippery slope. I hope you're never the one who has information or the law used unethically against you. Trust me...when it's done, you can scream for justice all you want...but all you'll hear is the sound of crickets chirping. If it weren't for whistle blowers, our legal system would likely transform into an incredibly unjust process.
Glad I could "help!" : /
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
War means power grabbing and killing people for pleasure
I'm all for it! >:D
Go Corporate America!
Please. At least a dozen people were KILLED as a result of torture in Abu Ghraib. The pictures of our soldiers posing with the bodies were all over the internet. Do you really mean to tell me you didn't notice that?
You have got to be fucking kidding me. The Chinese crimes were committed by... wait for it... that's right, CHINA. A country we have very little ability to influence. No matter how you twist it, Clinton is not to blame for what the Chinese government did. On the other hand, the crimes in Abu Ghraib were committed by, yes, that's right, agents of the US GOVERNMENT, who were acting on legal advice provided by the Secretary of Defense.
So please spare me the argument that Clinton's trade liberalization with China is somehow morally equivalent to US Government-conducted torture of prisoners.
Sean
Your response is so typical. I suggest that people overreact to things like this, and you assume I'm for no controls on the government at all.
Power corrupts; Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Yup. And then a tired cliche. Check.
"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
The Who hailed from the UK, didn't they? *wink*
Just how flamingly liberal do you have to be to refer to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor as "moderate"?
I'm a Programmer. That's one level above Software Engineer and one level below Engineer.
Ok, that's it. You, me, after school, by sandbox! Grammar Nazi Punk!
you'll finally have something that's not gibberish.
you'll finally have something that's not a gibberish.
HOLY FUCK, you're a god-damned idiot! Gibberish is plural, mouth-breather.
Abortions are way up under Bush. I think religious conservatives are much less concerned with babies than with punishing people for having sex. They crave the chance to condemn someone. Hence the cult-like support for an obvious phoney and incompetent whose policies have resulted in more abortions per year than under Clinton. Hence the opposition to family planning, even when that results in more abortions. Hence the opposition to sex ed, even when that results in more abortions. (And how about those chastity pledges! They INCREASE the rate of having sex among teenagers, and also make it much more likely that the resulting sex will be unsafe and spread STDs and lead to pregnancy! But we'll be ideologically pure!)
Since it's "Confession Day" on /. I'll pony up.
/really/ blame me, as I recall, Al Gore was the alternative. Heck, even /I/ don't blame myself for that one.
;))
Yep, I voted for him twice too. The first time you can't
The second time, I duhno. I live in a very conservative area (Utah, of all places) and 'everyone else' was voting for him & I'm afraid I didn't give it the thought it required. I did, however, learn a valuable lesson & if you'll forgive me I promise to never make the same mistake again (next I get to vote against Oren Hatch - sorry everyone about him, it's an uphill battle, there).
Join the ACLU. Write your politicians. Vote third party. Be vocal in social circles (those of you that venture outside
Slightly OT, sorry 'bout that. Needs to be said. I know I'm not the only person that wishes he could change the way he voted in the last election.
"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
HOLY FUCK, you're a god-damned idiot! Gibberish is plural, mouth-breather.
gibberish can be plural or singular depending on the context.
Ok, that's it. You, me, after school, by sandbox! Grammar Nazi Punk! You are so fucking dead.
"Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
It's never used in the singular. "A gibberish" is as incorrect as "one gibberish," dumbass! Gibberish is an uncountable noun, and thus is always treated as plural. The point stands: you've made two corrections, and both of them are incorrect. Tack on one incorrect defense to the end, and I'd say this 'playground smackdown' is a one-sided slaughter!
Don't get into a grammar-fight if you're unarmed, knuckle-dragger.
to know that Alito voted last? "Cast the deciding vote". What a bogus notion. This isn't about who wants what on their pizza. Whats next? Tell Ginsburg and Scalia to leave cause they always vote opposite so nothing to see hear, move along?
Surpreme Court Decision 04-473 was a victory for corrupt government executives everywhere. I call upon you to draft & support legislation which protects whistle blowers.
Our constiution has a first amendment right to petition the government for redress of greviences. The DOJ has argued, in court, that there exists no oblibation for the government to respond to such petitions. Such a position is perposterous. Governments are instituded among men for the sole purpose of the protection of inalienable rights, and to provide just and equitible resolutions when infractions occur. There exists no reason why the government in its role as protector of the People's rights shouldbe allowed to squelch the voices of those who report on internal corruption. If the DOJ gets its way, the People, the foundation of the power of the government, will have no means to police its own government.
The government should be afraid of its people, not the people afraid of their government. This includes whistleblowers.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
The second time, I duhno. I live in a very conservative area (Utah, of all places) and 'everyone else' was voting for him & I'm afraid I didn't give it the thought it required. I did, however, learn a valuable lesson & if you'll forgive me I promise to never make the same mistake again (next I get to vote against Oren Hatch - sorry everyone about him, it's an uphill battle, there).
;))
I make no apologies. I voted for Bush because he was the only real choice for me.
Join the ACLU. Write your politicians. Vote third party. Be vocal in social circles (those of you that venture outside
2 out of 4 isn't bad. I will not join the ACLU or support them in any way unless they come about on my two big issues. I haven't seen a third party candidate that is any better than the offerings of the two major parties. When there is one, perhaps he'll get my vote.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
This is not an accident. Prosecutors achieve career success by winning convictions. The more offenses there are, the easier it is to get convictions. So they lobby lawmakers to make more things illegal. Lawmakers being mostly lawyers themselves, go along.
Sean
No its not the real world.
Its the post 9-11 world silly. These things like rights and integrity is exactly what helps the enemies win.
You are either with us in limiting freedom or with the terrorists. Just ask Karl Rove?
http://saveie6.com/
Summarizes everything. You can't deny it.
THere are many more examples as well
http://saveie6.com/
Last week the white house stated that freedom of speech doesn't apply to the press that leak stories with national secrets and the NSA has confirmed they are monitoring all phone calls by reporters!
So yes it should be illegal to release classified information. But what about deep throat during watergate? Nixon made his actions classified to avoid prosecution.
So with the whistleblower laws deep throat would be in jail and no one would have known about watergate.
Whats bad is you can't go to the press if the governmetn does something illegal. It was classified right? So you and the reporter goes to jail.
This creates a climate where everything is secret. Kind of scary
http://saveie6.com/
Its not just this case.
Its about everything the whitehouse has done since 2000. If you read some of the posts here you can find almost a dozen constitional violations with a cult like congress and senate who are blindly patriotic and approve of the actions.
Yes, its now ok to break the law. Infact I read another chilling post here on slashdot last week about a government employee making an oath to the constitution. IN the 90's the oath including protecting the constittion and supporting the president and following the laws of the land and his supperiors all the way to the president.
Today the same oath has nothing to do with following laws faithfully but rather following orders of supperiors all the way to the president. It was deleted out. Why is that?
Not to sound paranoid but the other poster did notice similiarities to Germany and Japan just before WWII. Things were fine until dire economic conditions hit both countries and with no safe guards abuse of power and dictators were born that caused WWII.
Still for me its about morality and ethics. You DONT BREAK THE LAW. I dont give a crap if its a post 9-11 world and if your the president or senior advisor at the pentagon. If I follow it for society then so should you or face consequences.
http://saveie6.com/
Tipping or not you are required under law to report any wrong doing. Even in private industry you can still be tried under lesser charges for not reporting a crime.
Yes the guy got away but this is why we have due process and need protection for employees. The whistleblower laws should apply for government workers as well. They are not special and should be held more accountable
http://saveie6.com/
I whole-heartedly agree with the parent poster. I think politicians today are far too concerned with their "job security" to be bothered with upholding this country's ideals. Term limits may be a partial solution to this, however i doubt this country's mounting problems will every be solved rationally...
It's a good post - it deserves to be more visible.
Guantanamo prison still exists whatever way you spin it or labels you give to it. Prez and his buddies are still wheelin' and dealin', causing damage and killing people. Domestic population is still getting stupider as schooling crumbles.
Listen: it does not matter what people are or who has what. What matters is what people do, why people do.
Guns don't kill people, killing people kills people. WMDs don't kill people, killing people kills people. Terrorists don't kill people, killing people kills people.
Are you getting my point? You upset some peaceloving man somewhere, he starts killing people. Not because you label him whateverist but because you bombed his home and killed his family.
> We were, perhaps, in the 80s and early 90s - which were the glory days
> of the EU competition (anti-trust, if you must) directorate attacking
> state monopolies and imposing (and enforcing) serious fines against
> member states for illegal state aid.
I was mostly thinking about private trusts. There are still a lot of business areas in Denmark where you get almost identical price quotes from different companies (and *not* because of a perfect market!), and areas where a single company manage to dominate the market.
Our national anti-trust agency has been inefficient, and whenever anyone was busted only ridiculously small fines were given. EU has been much more active, the fines has been signficant.
The trust have become better at not leaving any paper trail though. Having a trust is so much more lucrative than actually competing, that it is very hard to give up. Without constant intervention, any free market will automatically colapse into trusts (or guilds as they used to be called) and monopolies.
With regard to state monopolies, Denmark has (like UK) been way ahead of the EU in privatization, so we haven't felt the influence directly there. It may have been a signficant factor in other member countries.
Is it just me, or while reading this did I discern that this is a "Hate America" Thread?....Or should that be "Hate Bush" Thread?
Honestly people....Get over our current form of goverment and understand that it's broken. Quit whining unless you have a way to fix it.
Thank you, I will now accept flames and attacks from the left.
" i r 1337. j00 a l0z3r "
That talk kinda makes you cry, doesn't it?
That's right..cry those nerdly tears