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."'"
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 have no idea what the word "communist" means. Why don't you go look it up?
The US is moving towards a police state, which China, to a large degree, already is. The US is more capitalistc than ever (capitalism is the opposite of communism).
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
Yeah, but China's not communist, either. Last time I checked, the workers didn't own the means of production over there, which pretty much rules out it being communist. It's easy: ask, does the Chinese factory worker have a boss, other than a democratically elected shop manager? If the answer is yes, then it's not a communist state, QED. Whatever labels they put on the owners' doors are irrelevant, whether it's CEO or Chairman or Premier of the Supreme Soviet.
This is an illustration of how any attempt to bring a top-down reshaping of society via a powerful engine of state is doomed right from the start.
To sum it up, I submit three great American proverbs: "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss." and my favorite, "Authoritarian Marxists = teh dumb."
I think the best label for China would be "Gangsterocracy."
It's descriptive, accurate, and fun to say!
Bullshit.
You don't have to be young and inexperienced to be idealistic. Having high ideals and living up to them is harder when you are grown up and experience the real world, but it can be done. Only lazy and intellectually dishonest people do things that are morally/ethically/idealistically wrong and blame it on "the real world".
To let America slide from a beacon of hope in the world to a distrusted mad dog because it's too hard to do the right thing is frankly disgusting.
Or so I believe.
(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.
Fascism Anyone?
Laurence W. Britt
The following article is from Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 23, Number 2.
Free Inquiry readers may pause to read the "Affirmations of Humanism: A Statement of Principles" on the inside cover of the magazine. To a secular humanist, these principles seem so logical, so right, so crucial. Yet, there is one archetypal political philosophy that is anathema to almost all of these principles. It is fascism. And fascism's principles are wafting in the air today, surreptitiously masquerading as something else, challenging everything we stand for. The cliché that people and nations learn from history is not only overused, but also overestimated; often we fail to learn from history, or draw the wrong conclusions. Sadly, historical amnesia is the norm.
We are two-and-a-half generations removed from the horrors of Nazi Germany, although constant reminders jog the consciousness. German and Italian fascism form the historical models that define this twisted political worldview. Although they no longer exist, this worldview and the characteristics of these models have been imitated by protofascist regimes at various times in the twentieth century. Both the original German and Italian models and the later protofascist regimes show remarkably similar characteristics. Although many scholars question any direct connection among these regimes, few can dispute their visual similarities.
Beyond the visual, even a cursory study of these fascist and protofascist regimes reveals the absolutely striking convergence of their modus operandi. This, of course, is not a revelation to the informed political observer, but it is sometimes useful in the interests of perspective to restate obvious facts and in so doing shed needed light on current circumstances.
For the purpose of this perspective, I will consider the following regimes: Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco's Spain, Salazar's Portugal, Papadopoulos's Greece, Pinochet's Chile, and Suharto's Indonesia. To be sure, they constitute a mixed bag of national identities, cultures, developmental levels, and history. But they all followed the fascist or protofascist model in obtaining, expanding, and maintaining power. Further, all these regimes have been overthrown, so a more or less complete picture of their basic characteristics and abuses is possible.
Analysis of these seven regimes reveals fourteen common threads that link them in recognizable patterns of national behavior and abuse of power. These basic characteristics are more prevalent and intense in some regimes than in others, but they all share at least some level of similarity.
1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.
2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.
3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people's attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice--relentless propaganda and disinformation--were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite "spontaneous" acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals
--