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?
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.
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
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.
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
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...
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?).
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
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.
"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.
Wrong. Since police state is also about the measure of fascism ... which is defined by the nationalistic intermingling of corporate business and the rich elite and the gouvernment with a strong reliance on and glorification of the military. And fighting against this is pretty much the premise of communism, long before even the word fascism existed. ... if you are short of examples of fascist states in the last 100 years: Mussolini Italy, Hitler Germany, Franco Spain, Pinochet Chile, Peron Argentinia, Bush America. No shortage of that, and also no shortage of atrocities committed there.
That all so called communist states where police states too is pretty much a result of "to fight a monster, you have to become one". This is no excuse of course, but rather a sign that they were't really communist in the first place.
And oh
Just because I can imagine doing a hippopotamus, doesn't mean I'd like to do it.
America needs to have FEWER, not MORE, lawsuits.
I totally agree, which is why I asked the question in the first place. Call my a cynic, but all the politicos in office just keep writing more and more laws/bills just to justify their own existence and/or legacy.
Our government is becoming bloated with virtually an unmanageable codebase in that laws are to civilization as source code is to a program.
Life is not for the lazy.
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
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." ---
When I said pseudo-communism, I meant the type of fake communism employed by the now-gone USSR and the still-existent PRC. I thought it was painfully obvious from the types of references I made.
Neither country listed above employs communism in any form. Look at marxist theory and you can see that neither the USSR nor China were anywhere near a communist state (except maybe china during the days immediately after the revolution.
China ended up as more of a capitalist/faschist hybrid state posing as a communist nation. That's almost where we are headed now.
Viable Slashdot alternatives: https://pipedot.org/ and http://soylentnews.org/
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.
"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?
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"?
(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.
"There's a difference between speech and active disruption of lawful activity; the first is protected and the second is not."
You could define any protest as an active disruption of SOME lawful activity. Once again the first amendment is subject to caveats that render it a polite, warm fiction.
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.
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.
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.
nationalistic intermingling of corporate business and the rich elite and the gouvernmentCongradulations you also just defined communism, except fascism had not problems with various classes in of people. However that is a very poor understanding of both communism and fascism.
a strong reliance on and glorification of the military not needed for a facist state. Besides look at China or the USSR both big into glorification of the military.
A far better and more exact definition of fascism can be found by looking in dictionaries and even history. Here is a probably one of the beter ones by Robert O Paxton who wrote _Anatomy of Fascism_
And fighting against this is pretty much the premise of communism, long before even the word fascism existed.
Huh??
According the Marx the fighting of communism was against capitalism and the classes of people that resulted from it. It was only later that communism and fascism became bitter enemies, and that was mainly because they were attracting the same type of people; from a capitalist standpoint communism and fasism are two sides of the same coin.
As for your "examples"
Mussolini Italy, Hitler Germany correct
Franco Spain is considered by most political scholars as authoritarism.
Pinochet Chile is considered a military dictartorship
Peron Argentinia not even close, try Peronism. when the military junta of Jorge Videla took over they had a very hard "anti-communist" stance against the former Peronism.
Bush America that explains the changes you made to history and word definitions. When the facts don't back up the reality you want redefine them.
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.
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
That is why I am beginning to think there should exist a cap on the number of existing laws. You want to make a new law? You need to remove one along with the new one. This is especially nice for taxes. I would also start the cap at a number well below the current number (infinity?) of laws.
:)) would be required. :)
Also, why can they not consolidate laws? For example, would people want one law against murder that listed all the punishments or would they prefer many laws with one for each type of punishment? Lawyers/politicians seem to prefer a greater number unfortunately. Of course the cap I mentioned would at least force consolidation.
To prevent them from combining non-related laws together, public stonings (non-California style
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
recently introduced provincial whistleblower law
And the federal law
---
"I can't complain, but sometimes still do..." Joe Walsh
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
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