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."'"
Read Kyllo. (Not Kelo, which is the New London case you cited) Then get back to me when you understand what "conservative" and "liberal" mean in the supreme court context. Fourth and Fifth amendment law are good examples of where everything you know about "conservative" and "liberal" get shot to hell. (More or less: Scalia generally votes to free the felon, Ginsburg generally votes to lock them up.)
There is nothing at all "funny" about the eminent domain rulings if you understand where the "conservative" moniker comes from.
For 200 years, "social" and "constitutional" conservatives were basically one and the same. This stopped being the case 50 or so years ago, and has only grown profoundly since Reagan. This is not a "no brainer" and one of the dissents hits the nail on the head: A teacher protesting hiring decisions in a school would be protected, but a school HR employee protesting the same decisions would not be.
When in doubt, parenthesize. At the very least it will let some poor schmuck bounce on the % key in vi. (Larry Wall)
Read the opinion -- the entire opinon. The motion to suppress was denied on /other/ grounds. The warrant was facially invalid for the reasons he cited in his memo. The judge (in what some would call "judicial activism") denied the suppression motion based on other evidence in the record NOT in the warrant affidavit.
Basically, he blew the whistle that the government was using illegal tactics to catch a bad guy. The trial judge threw out the whistleblower by looking at the bad guy and saying "yeah, he's bad, so whatever." At the end of the day, this wasn't an accusatory memo. The majority glosses over the facts because they need to use the rhetoric. One of O'Connor's "totality of the circumstances" eleven pronged tests would have helped nicely here.
When in doubt, parenthesize. At the very least it will let some poor schmuck bounce on the % key in vi. (Larry Wall)
But the court's decision says that if you try to complain within the system, you can be disciplined for that. Conversely, if you go public with your complaint, you are protected by the first amendment. So the court is reversing your argument and giving higher protection to the public disclosure than going through "proper channels."
Peace and love, y'all
(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.
FTFA...The ruling overturned an appeals court decision that said Los Angeles County prosecutor Richard Ceballos was constitutionally protected when he wrote a memo questioning whether a county sheriff's deputy had lied in a search warrant affidavit. Ceballos had filed a lawsuit claiming he was demoted and denied a promotion for trying to expose the lie.
"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.
A public offical was trying to expose a lie used to obtain a search warrant.
Justice Kennedy seems to think that is not the employer's mission. I think Justice Kennedy is confused on who the employer actually is. Hint: US Citizens.
The government isn't censoring people because of this decision but it does make whistleblowing an even more daunting challenge. Look at Siebel Edmonds for a good example of how difficult government whistle blowing was before this decision. note: her saga isn't over yet.
If the govt becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law, it invites man to become his own law, it invites anarchy
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.