NationStates Jolt Archive

US curbs whistle-blowers' rights

The US Supreme court has limited the rights of government whistle-blowers by ruling that they will not be protected under the First Amendment.

The ruling, which was passed by a 5-4 vote, means employees are not protected by free speech laws when speaking out during the course of their duties.

Source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5034100.stm)



So it starts. Now, if you work for them, you no longer have the right to express your opinion about what they do. That is a recipie for abuse of power if ever there was one.

So it starts. Now, if you work for them, you no longer have the right to express your opinion about what they do. That is a recipie for abuse of power if ever there was one.

I find it amusing that US posters are attacking the UK for Knife 'Bans' which are actually only amnesty's, when stuff like this is happening in their own back yard. How amusing...

So it starts. Now, if you work for them, you no longer have the right to express your opinion about what they do. That is a recipie for abuse of power if ever there was one.
So, when does the revolution start? Maybe we should wait for the next election. Gee, I'm sure glad Bush got reelected and got to nominate two supreme court justices. Kerry might have elected some kind of unamerican activist judges.

Maybe the First Ammendmennt is gone, but the First Amendment lives on. ;P

So it starts. Now, if you work for them, you no longer have the right to express your opinion about what they do. That is a recipie for abuse of power if ever there was one.

"During the course of their duties"

Does this mean, "not allowed to speak out while on duty" or "not allowed to speak out so long as they are employed".

The Supreme Court decision overturned an appeal court ruling which said that the prosecutor was protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution.


There are already whistle blower laws that cover the tratment of Government workers ...they are extremely strong. The Supreme court ruled that in this case the first ammendment did not apply .
Did anyone read the disenting opinion yet ? It should give you abetter idea of the argument involved...You already know that the first ammendment doesnt apply to every expression of speach in every circumstance ,
so instead of a knee jerk response wouldnt it at least make a bit of sense to read about the case and the ruling ? before demanding that anyone be burned at the stake ?

Excuse me ...I forgot for a second where I am posting..:D

"During the course of their duties"

Does this mean, "not allowed to speak out while on duty" or "not allowed to speak out so long as they are employed".

The article implies that it covers while employed, not just in the active persual of their duties.

The article implies that it covers while employed, not just in the active persual of their duties.

...That sucks...big time, my friend.

There are already whistle blower laws that cover the tratment of Government workers ...they are extremely strong. The Supreme court ruled that in this case the first ammendment did not apply .
Did anyone read the disenting opinion yet ? It should give you abetter idea of the argument involved...You already know that the first ammendment doesnt apply to every expression of speach in every circumstance ,
so instead of a knee jerk response wouldnt it at least make a bit of sense to read about the case and the ruling ? before demanding that anyone be burned at the stake ?

Excuse me ...I forgot for a second where I am posting..:D

The ruling related to a "California prosecutor who claimed he was demoted, denied a promotion and transferred for alerting his superiors to an alleged error in a criminal procedure". Now if the anti whistle blowing laws can be used to justify punishment for pointing out errors in criminal procedure, then your country really is lost.

If you care to provide a link to the dissenting and concurring opinions, then I will happily read them.

By David G. Savage
Tribune Newspapers: Los Angeles Times
Published May 31, 2006


WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court restricted the free-speech rights of the nation's 21 million public employees Tuesday, ruling that the 1st Amendment does not protect them from being punished for complaining to their managers about possible wrongdoing.

Although government employees have the same rights as other citizens to speak out on controversies of the day, they do not have the right to speak freely inside their offices on matters related to "their official duties," the Supreme Court said in a 5-4 decision.

"When a citizen enters government service, the citizen by necessity must accept certain limitations on his or her freedom," said Justice Anthony Kennedy, rejecting a lawsuit brought by a Los Angeles County prosecutor.

Lawyers for government whistle-blowers denounced the ruling as a major setback.

"In an era of excessive government secrecy, the court has made it easier to engage in a government cover-up by discouraging internal whistle-blowing," said Steven Shapiro, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union.

However, lawyers for city and state agencies said the decision will prevent routine internal workplace disputes from becoming federal court cases.

The decision threw out most of a lawsuit filed by Deputy District Atty. Richard Ceballos, who said he was disciplined after he wrote memos alleging that a police officer may have lied to obtain a search warrant.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed he was entitled to a trial on his lawsuit because he had spoken on a "matter of public concern." But the Supreme Court reversed that ruling Tuesday.

"The 1st Amendment does not prohibit managerial discipline based on an employee's expressions made pursuant to official responsibilities," Kennedy said.

The court's newest justice, Samuel Alito, cast a crucial vote to form the pro-government majority. In October, the justices first heard the case, but they were apparently split 4-4 when Justice Sandra Day O'Connor stepped down in February. Also joining Kennedy were Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Because Tuesday's decision interprets the 1st Amendment, it applies to governments at all levels, including federal and states agencies, public hospitals and public schools and colleges.

The dissenters said they would have left the courthouse door open to such 1st Amendment suits. "I would hold that private and public interest in addressing official wrongdoing and threats to health and safety can outweigh the government's stake" in running an efficient office, said Justice David Souter.






I want to find the actual case file...and the dissenting opinion...on the surface it looks like this sucks..This is important .

(Supreme Court-AP) May 30, 2006 - The Supreme Court is making it harder for government whistleblowers to sue when they think they've been the victims of retaliation.

In an opinion written for five out of the nine justices, Justice Anthony Kennedy says free speech rights don't protect "every statement a public employee makes in the course of doing his or her job."

New Justice Samuel Alito cast the tie-breaking vote in deciding that the First Amendment doesn't offer blanket coverage to employees who disclose the government's inner workings - even if they are shedding light on wrongdoing.

Dissenting justices argue that the ruling may silence government workers who could blow the whistle on governmental misconduct.

The decision shuts down a lawsuit by a Los Angeles prosecutor who claimed he was demoted for trying to expose a lie behind a sheriff's deputy's request for a search warrant

...That sucks...big time, my friend.

Indeed. All whistleblowers will be labeled from now on as "ex-employees with an axe to grind"

If you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.

What a crock of shit, pardon my language.:upyours:

AND WHY IS THE BBC THE ONE ON THE STORY! WHERE THE HELL ARE ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, PBS(Oh. right.)?!?!

HEY FASCISTS! COME ARREST ME! PLEASE!


THIS
IS
NOT
LEGAL.

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.

YEAH! LET's UNDO TWO HUNDRED YEARS OF PROGRESS!

EDIT: Damn. It says Congress. Not the supreme court. Not that it should matter.

not the first time. it was ruled that Television and Radio are also exempt from the Freedom of Speech Amendment. no one complained about that.

YEAH! LET's UNDO TWO HUNDRED YEARS OF PROGRESS!

I hope you don't think that's an absolute right. I don't agree with this ruling, but still. Amendment I isn't the be-all and end-all.

Here's the thing:

If you work for someone, and you piss off your employer, you do not have the right to remain employed. This has nothing to do with freedom of speech whatsoever.

The employer - government or private - is not forced to hire you forever, no matter what kind of idiot you are.

There is no first amendment right to bitch about your employer in pubilc.

All the first amendment states is that private individuals are not to be penalized by government for what they say or print.

It's not the first time this has happened. The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1792 (I think it was 92 anyway) did a similar thing and that got overturned eventually. This won't last long. Still pisses me off though. :upyours: :mp5: :headbang:

The ruling related to a "California prosecutor who claimed he was demoted, denied a promotion and transferred for alerting his superiors to an alleged error in a criminal procedure". Now if the anti whistle blowing laws can be used to justify punishment for pointing out errors in criminal procedure, then your country really is lost.

If you care to provide a link to the dissenting and concurring opinions, then I will happily read them.


believe me I am trying to find it..it may not have been published yet..its not in the archives..but if the story is out and there are quotes from the decision its out there...


This doesnt look right to me at all...but I want to give it a real good look.
On the surface it looks like the court is dead wrong...at least IMO..what harm is it in letting a lower court determine if a whistleblower was "fired " for complaining about a legitamate abuse ?

BUT here's the thing ...why is this a " first ammendment case " and not a "whistleblower " case ? You would think the " prosecuter " would have brought a suit under existing whistleblower laws..if he just wanted to win ..why the first ammendment angle ?
I think the answer will be in the dissenting opinion . The guys who voted for the ruling for the most partare all strict constitutionalist . So its in a way undererstandable why they made the argument they did.
it wont be the first or last time I disagree with the Scrotums .

From Ultraextreme Sanity's post no 10

New Justice Samuel Alito cast the tie-breaking vote in deciding that the First Amendment doesn't offer blanket coverage to employees who disclose the government's inner workings - even if they are shedding light on wrongdoing.

The implication is that the people do not have the right to know how the government works. That just smells wrong to me. The government is the servant of the people in a democracy, how can it decide to retain how it works as a secret?

Here there are 390 something versions out already...

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&ct=title&ie=UTF-8&ncl=http://today.reuters.com/investing/financeArticle.aspx%3Ftype%3DbondsNews%26storyID%3D2006-05-30T151720Z_01_N28138244_RTRIDST_0_COURT-WHISTLEBLOWERS.XML

Excerpts from the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling on government whistleblowers and reaction to the decision.

"Employees who make public statements outside the course of performing their official duties retain some possibility of First Amendment protection because that is the kind of activity engaged in by citizens who do not work for the government. The same goes for writing a letter to a local newspaper or discussing politics with a co-worker. When a public employee speaks pursuant to employment responsibilities, however, there is no relevant analogue to speech by citizens who are not government employees." _Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority.

---

"The proper answer to the question `whether the First Amendment protects a government employee from discipline based on speech made pursuant to the employee's official duties,' is `Sometimes,' not `Never.' Of course a supervisor may take corrective action when such speech is `inflammatory or misguided.' But what if it is just unwelcome speech because it reveals facts that the supervisor would rather not have anyone else discover?" _Justice John Paul Stevens, in dissent.

---

"In an age of excessive government secrecy, the Supreme Court has made it easier to engage in a government cover-up by discouraging internal whistleblowing." _Steven Shapiro, national legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union.

---

"This significant, albeit qualified, protection of public employees who irritate the government is understood to flow from the First Amendment, in part, because a government paycheck does nothing to eliminate the value to an individual of speaking on public matters, and there is no good reason for categorically discounting a speaker's interest in commenting on a matter of public concern just because the government employs him. Still, the First Amendment safeguard rests on something more, being the value to the public of receiving the opinions and information that a public employee may disclose." _Justice David H. Souter, in a dissent.

---

"It's not the role of the First Amendment to be an all-purpose whistleblower law." _Gene Schaerr, a Washington attorney who filed a friend-of-court brief on behalf of the International Municipal Lawyers Association.

---

"I'm disappointed. I think the court's ruling clearly strikes a blow to all government employees. It creates a disincentive for government employees to report misconduct, waste or fraud that they witness." _Richard Ceballos, the whistleblower in the case.

---

"It could be the end of the case, if the client wants to put it behind him. I think if we continue fighting it, we will prevail." _Humberto Guizar, Ceballos' lawyer in Montebello, Calif.

---

"The speech of vast numbers of public employees deals with wrongdoing, health, safety, and honesty; for example, police officers, firefighters, environmental protection agents, building inspectors, hospital workers, bank regulators, and so on. Indeed, this categorization could encompass speech by an employee performing almost any public function, except perhaps setting electricity rates." _Justice Stephen Breyer, in a dissent.

---

"It will enable management to be more honest and candid in its personnel actions." _Employment attorney Dan Westman.

"Government workers who expose official misconduct deserve praise, not punishment. This ruling points out the need for tougher laws to protect whistleblowers." _Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J.

---

"We need not, and for that reason do not, decide whether the analysis we conduct today would apply in the same manner to a case involving speech related to scholarship or teaching." _Kennedy, in the majority opinion.

---

"This decision gives constitutional sanction to those who would fire a public worker for stepping forward to preserve the integrity of our public institutions as a government whistleblower." _Gerald McEntee, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.




"Employees who make public statements outside the course of performing their official duties retain some possibility of First Amendment protection because that is the kind of activity engaged in by citizens who do not work for the government. The same goes for writing a letter to a local newspaper or discussing politics with a co-worker. When a public employee speaks pursuant to employment responsibilities, however, there is no relevant analogue to speech by citizens who are not government employees." _Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority.


So its ok for the guy to write a letter to the editor and expose whatever he feels is wrong...but it not ok for him to tell his boss and expect to be protected under the first ammendment ..

Thats a VERY strict interpretation of the first ammendment .

And thats the basis to have a good agrument . Because he still has the right to say what he has to but in the correct forum...according to these fellows .

I think the Senator who said toughen the whistleblower laws has a VERY good idea . Although they are SUPPOSED to be so tough now as to be " oppressive " according to some .

Supreme court opinions (pdf) (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-473.pdf)

Without a significant degree of control over its employees’ words and actions, a government employer would have little chance to provide public services efficiently.
Huh!

Ceballos wrote his disposition memo because that is part of what he was employed to do.
So if you do your job you get fired, and if you don't you get fired. Good one.

More to come.

Just rediculous. I hate our gov't.

"It's not the role of the First Amendment to be an all-purpose whistleblower law." _Gene Schaerr, a Washington attorney who filed a friend-of-court brief on behalf of the International Municipal Lawyers Association


So create an "all purpose whistleblower law " if thats even possible .:D

I haven't read the whole decision yet, but I'm unimpressed that this is a problem. The lawyer was acting in his official duties. His employers be they government or private are well within their rights to discipline him if they are unhappy with the way he performs his official duties. There are other problems in this case, but if I wrote a letter to one of our clients from my desk and told them that I think our company is screwing them, I would fully expect and rightfully expect to be fired.

Here's the thing:

If you work for someone, and you piss off your employer, you do not have the right to remain employed. This has nothing to do with freedom of speech whatsoever.

The employer - government or private - is not forced to hire you forever, no matter what kind of idiot you are.

There is no first amendment right to bitch about your employer in pubilc.

All the first amendment states is that private individuals are not to be penalized by government for what they say or print.
I have to say that I agree with you, Allanea, although I'll need more time to think over the issue. Free speech means that you can speak your mind without legal recourse by the government; it does not appear to include private matters, of which, if you are an employee of the government, this issue falls under.

More from the opinion.

Ceballos’ proposed contrary rule, adopted bythe Ninth Circuit, would commit state and federal courts to a new, permanent, and intrusive role, mandating judicial oversight of communications between and among government employees and theirsuperiors in the course of official business.

Shouldn't communication between public officials be something in the public record anyway?

Exposing governmental inefficiency and misconduct is a matterof considerable significance, and various measures have been adopted to protect employees and provide checks on supervisors who would order unlawful or otherwise inappropriate actions. These include federal and state whistle-blower protection laws and labor codes and, for government attorneys, rules of conduct and constitutional obligations apart from the First Amendment. However, the Court’s precedents do not support the existence of a constitutional cause of action behind every statement a public employee makes in the course of doing his or her job

OK, so it should not have been a constitutional issue, but as it became one in practice, this does not give SCOTUS the right to ride roughshod over the constitution. Nicely ignored this in the opinion.

Supreme court opinions (pdf) (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-473.pdf)


Huh!


So if you do your job you get fired, and if you don't you get fired. Good one.

More to come.

So do governments have the right to sanction an employee who in doing his or her job dissatisfies their employer? If not, what can they sanction an employee for? And why do you get to decide?

Supreme court opinions (pdf) (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-473.pdf)


Huh!


So if you do your job you get fired, and if you don't you get fired. Good one.

More to come.

Evidently they are saying he didnt do his job the right way and they fired him...there are procedures to folow to report abuse etc..HE claims he can report them anyway he wants because he has the right under the first ammendment to free speech .

So if you do your job the way you are supposed to you do not get fired..etc.;)

More from the opinion.



Shouldn't communication between public officials be something in the public record anyway?

No. Why would it be? Commonly in the official conduct of a government job you deal with information that the public has no right to and in many cases would injure others. Your tax documents are part of official communication in the conduct of government jobs. Should they be public record?

OK, so it should not have been a constitutional issue, but as it became one in practice, this does not give SCOTUS the right to ride roughshod over the constitution. Nicely ignored this in the opinion.
It isn't a constitutional issue. That's the point the court made. Speaking in my official capacity as a government employee is not protected speech. I can tell you to go to hell if I'm walking down the street, but I certainly can't do it if you call 911 and I'm the operator.

More from the opinion.



Shouldn't communication between public officials be something in the public record anyway?



OK, so it should not have been a constitutional issue, but as it became one in practice, this does not give SCOTUS the right to ride roughshod over the constitution. Nicely ignored this in the opinion.

Sure the CIA should do everything as a matter of public record...so should the NSA..the FBI ...NASA...nothing should be confidential !
YOUR JOKING RIGHT ?


Its their job to interpret when things are and are not constitutional ISSUES ...on this case they decided it was not. As is their duty under the Constitution . I do not think that constitutes " running rough shod over the Constitution "

Why are you cherry picking the argument?

Did you already decide ahead of time they must be wrong without looking at the facts ?

I haven't read the whole decision yet, but I'm unimpressed that this is a problem. The lawyer was acting in his official duties. His employers be they government or private are well within their rights to discipline him if they are unhappy with the way he performs his official duties. There are other problems in this case, but if I wrote a letter to one of our clients from my desk and told them that I think our company is screwing them, I would fully expect and rightfully expect to be fired.

If you wrote a memo to your boss explaining that some procedure had not been carried out correctly (not by you), would you expect to be fired as well? Because that is what happened in this case.

The issue here is not exactly the substance of the case, but the implications of the SCOTUS ruling. These are that you have lost some of the protections for those that wish to expose government corruption.

Sure the CIA should do everything as a matter of public record...so should the NSA..the FBI ...NASA...nothing should be confidential !
YOUR JOKING RIGHT ?


Its their job to interpret when things are and are not constitutional ISSUES ...on this case they decided it was not. As is their duty under the Constitution . I do not think that constitutes " running rough shod over the Constitution "

Why are you cherry picking the argument?

Did you already decide ahead of time they must be wrong without looking at the facts ?

No one said anything about the CIA, FBI etc. These are special cases and are covered by other laws.

Evidently they are saying he didnt do his job the right way and they fired him...there are procedures to folow to report abuse etc..HE claims he can report them anyway he wants because he has the right under the first ammendment to free speech .

So if you do your job the way you are supposed to you do not get fired..etc.;)
This is pretty much the way I understand it, too. The right to free speech isn't the same as a right to be protected from the consequences of that speech. Shield laws for whistle-blowers can serve that purpose, if the government decides that it is necessary.

If you wrote a memo to your boss explaining that some procedure had not been carried out correctly (not by you), would you expect to be fired as well? Because that is what happened in this case.

No, but this memo wasn't simply written to his boss. It was sent to others outside of their group. And either way, what you describe is NOT a first amendment issue. You could argue a lot of other issues there. Wrongful termination perhaps. But they didn't. They argued first amendment. It's not. At all. This was an opinion he gave in his official capacity and in a way they didn't like. He did more than simply express his distaste for policy. He wrote a lot about it and testified on it in his official capacity.

The issue here is not exactly the substance of the case, but the implications of the SCOTUS ruling. These are that you have lost some of the protections for those that wish to expose government corruption.
The SCOTUS rules on the case in front of them. This case was not a first amendment case. At all.

But it was criticised by civil rights groups, who said it would discourage employees from exposing misconduct.

In practice, it will strengthen the government's ability to discipline public employees who make allegations of official misconduct.

( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5034100.stm )

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/O/O/propaganda_silence.jpg

Here's the thing:

If you work for someone, and you piss off your employer, you do not have the right to remain employed. This has nothing to do with freedom of speech whatsoever.

Wow! That's just nuts!
I'm sure glad I dont have to live with that kind of insecurity. If my ability to see my child fed hung on nothing more than the whim of some other person, I wouldnt have a single moment's peace of mind.
It's astounding to consider that people's only ability to gain their subsistance and provide for their children can be taken from them just becuase their boss is in a spewy mood about not pulling any tail at the strip joint last night!

The employer - government or private - is not forced to hire you forever, no matter what kind of idiot you are.
And a darn good thing too. Yet another reason for me to be grateful for the great lottery of life-circumstance that rendered me here instead of there (assuming of course that your statement re:0 job security is actually true). It's a relief to know that neither employers nor employees suffer from the unnecessary and unacceptable consequences either of employees having no job security whatsoever, and employers having no abiliity whatsoever to manage their employment practises to match their employment needs.

There is no first amendment right to bitch about your employer in pubilc.
Sure there is, that much is confirmed in the ruling that this thread is discussing...:rolleyes:

All the first amendment states is that private individuals are not to be penalized by government for what they say or print.
Mmm, interesting tactic, by stating a pair of contradictory premises, you'll never be completely wrong, in fact you'll always be half right....
Was that your intention or do you fail to realise the two italisised premises are contradictory?:confused:

I hope you don't think that's an absolute right. I don't agree with this ruling, but still. Amendment I isn't the be-all and end-all.

Why not? It is what we were founded on. Last time I checked the principals of freedom have not changed.

*plays taps"

We'll miss you, First Amendment. We really will.

the patriot act should instead be called the communist act for all the rights we lose!!!!!

I find it amusing that US posters are attacking the UK for Knife 'Bans' which are actually only amnesty's, when stuff like this is happening in their own back yard. How amusing...

lol.....you guys gave them the idea...but i may be wrong?

seems to me that the states remind me of england...badly..puritan fucks telling us/me how to live....kinda like the neocons.

I haven't read the whole decision yet, but I'm unimpressed that this is a problem. The lawyer was acting in his official duties. His employers be they government or private are well within their rights to discipline him if they are unhappy with the way he performs his official duties. There are other problems in this case, but if I wrote a letter to one of our clients from my desk and told them that I think our company is screwing them, I would fully expect and rightfully expect to be fired.
And if it turned out that your letter proves that your company was committing a crime or breach of contract with its client, you could use that in your ginormous lawsuit for wrongful dismissal because there is no lawful ability to prevent someone from reporting a crime. Oh, wait, this ruling might undermine your ability to bring that suit. Oh well. Rulings like this just allow crooks to cover their tracks by silencing witnesses.

Like for instance, I once had a job where the chief financial officer was committing penny-ante fraud against our clients. He was overcharging some clients to cover overages the company had to eat on other clients' project. This is illegal. I found out about it when I negotiated a freelance contract for a certain amount of money and got the client to sign off on paying that money for that service as a line item. Then, after the client had signed their contract, but before the freelancer signed her contract, this executive came into my office and told me the amount was too high and to pay the freelancer $300 less. I told him the client was paying for it, and he said he didn't care, he wanted me to pay the freelancer $300 less. What did I do? Well, I'm me, and other people possibly shouldn't try to copy me. I went to my direct boss, who this exec skipped over to talk to me, and told him, very loudly, in the common office area, where everyone including the exec could hear me, to "Keep that son of a bitch [name of exec] the hell away from me because I will not be made to look like a crook so he can diddle his clients to the tune of $300!" My contract got carried out the way I negotiated it, and three months later, I still had to quit that job. Frankly, I would have fired me, but he didn't. Why? Because he was fucking guilty of misdemeanor fraud, that's why, and if he fired me, not only would I have turned him in to the state, but the law would have allowed me to sue the living crap out of the company and maybe even him personally.

But now, we'll have to see if such lawsuits can still be brought.

This SCOTUS ruling is just another attempt to destroy the mechanisms for accountability, both governmental and corporate, by creating a tool for intimidating employees into keeping their mouths shut. This is why smart workers should always keep their resumes in circulation and try to save a reserve of as much money as possible. There's a reason why they call it "fuck-you money."

Maybe the First Ammendmennt is gone, but the First Amendment lives on. ;P
Ohh... you're back! When did you return and what have you been doing?

Indeed. All whistleblowers will be labeled from now on as "ex-employees with an axe to grind"
Well, that's how Cornlieu dismisses all the retired generals who have come out against the Iraq war.

And if it turned out that your letter proves that your company was committing a crime or breach of contract with its client, you could use that in your ginormous lawsuit for wrongful dismissal because there is no lawful ability to prevent someone from reporting a crime. Oh, wait, this ruling might undermine your ability to bring that suit. Oh well. Rulings like this just allow crooks to cover their tracks by silencing witnesses.

No, it wouldn't. Read the ruling. It doesn't address that at all. They suggested it violated first amendment. It doesn't. You don't get to go shotgun approach in law. A wrongful termination is not the same as a first amendment violation. You have no first amendment rights in your official capacity working for someone else.

If you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.

What a crock of shit, pardon my language.:upyours:

AND WHY IS THE BBC THE ONE ON THE STORY! WHERE THE HELL ARE ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, PBS(Oh. right.)?!?!

HEY FASCISTS! COME ARREST ME! PLEASE!


THIS
IS
NOT
LEGAL.



YEAH! LET's UNDO TWO HUNDRED YEARS OF PROGRESS!

EDIT: Damn. It says Congress. Not the supreme court. Not that it should matter.


wow...i love you....


all the truths noted in the constitution support each other.

and please dont bring up slavery....not in the 10 amendments,if they followed them,slavery would never have happened...but that is the beauty of the constitution...you have redress.

if blacks could have defended themselves,and fought for their rights(a given in the constitustion)they woud have never been enslaved,but like all things,man fucks up what could have been a perfect document to live by.

please forgive me,tad intoxicated..lol..but my point still stands.

go ahead and harangue me for my poor spelling or the fact that it is 12 amendments,may have mixed that up with the ten commandments(as i was an alter boy)but you get my gist i hope.

i believe in doing whatever the hell you want...as long as no harm comes to others from your actions.

plus i hate pompous ass do gooders or puritans telling me whats right for me.

No, it wouldn't. Read the ruling. It doesn't address that at all. They suggested it violated first amendment. It doesn't. You don't get to go shotgun approach in law. A wrongful termination is not the same as a first amendment violation. You have no first amendment rights in your official capacity working for someone else.
To your credit, you seem unfamiliar with how corporate lawyers operate. Trust me, they'll try to use any statute at all, whether it's relevant or not. If he's worth his $300-$500 per hour, he'll make it seem relevant just long enough to get your suit tossed out.

And read my whole post, J. I said even I would have fired me for denouncing my boss the way I did. And in any event, most staff jobs are employment-at-will anyway -- we can quit and they can fire for no reason at all. The point is that this ruling talks about allowing a person to be punished for whistleblowing. Whistleblowing is always about reporting crimes or malfeasance. The law should not be creating methods for crooks to protect themselves from investigation.

I agree with the earlier poster -- don't remember who it was, sorry -- who asked why this was considered by SCOTUS at all? There is no reason for it to be a 1st Amendment issue. Technically it's an employee rights issue. Why is it being attached to speech? Again, knowing how lawyers (like Alberto Gonzalez) operate, I wonder if it is some lame-ass attempt to tie the power to fire whistleblowers to the Bush admin's desire to punish journalists for putting out stories about government corruption. I mean, the journalist are just doing their job, too, right? And that job IS covered by the 1st Amendment, unlike yours and mine.

To your credit, you seem unfamiliar with how corporate lawyers operate. Trust me, they'll try to use any statute at all, whether it's relevant or not. If he's worth his $300-$500 per hour, he'll make it seem relevant just long enough to get your suit tossed out.

And read my whole post, J. I said even I would have fired me for denouncing my boss the way I did. And in any event, most staff jobs are employment-at-will anyway -- we can quit and they can fire for no reason at all. The point is that this ruling talks about allowing a person to be punished for whistleblowing. Whistleblowing is always about reporting crimes or malfeasance. The law should not be creating methods for crooks to protect themselves from investigation.

I agree with the earlier poster -- don't remember who it was, sorry -- who asked why this was considered by SCOTUS at all? There is no reason for it to be a 1st Amendment issue. Technically it's an employee rights issue. Why is it being attached to speech? Again, knowing how lawyers (like Alberto Gonzalez) operate, I wonder if it is some lame-ass attempt to tie the power to fire whistleblowers to the Bush admin's desire to punish journalists for putting out stories about government corruption. I mean, the journalist are just doing their job, too, right? And that job IS covered by the 1st Amendment, unlike yours and mine.

I am familiar with corporate lawyers. I've been on the business end. However, what people will bastardize and what is a proper decision is not the same thing. This decision was just. I wish they hadn't had to rule, but the earlier court made it a first amendment issue when they ruled it one and thus the only possible place to rectify the issue was SCOTUS. The earlier court was wrong to call it a first amendment issue.

Now, I fully agree it's an employee rights issue. The first amendment does not apply to individuals in an official capacity. It's not a first amendment issue if a paper fires a journalist for what they write. it is a first amendment if someone else does, however. I can call you names walking past you on the street but not as a support tech for Microsoft. The first amendment is to prevent censorship in your private life or as a private corporation. It has nothing to do with your rights as an employee (unless they are coming after you for what you do in your private life and even that is iffy - drug tests I'm looking at you).

Why worry about it! By the time George W and his buddies are out of the White House, the good ol' US of A will be a police state anyways!

Ohh... you're back! When did you return and what have you been doing?


I came back a few days ago. Turns out being alone and bored 10 hours a day drags me back here...

I'm out of classes for the summer, so I've returned to annoy NS General again. Of course, Jocabia and Fass are giving me a run for my money, as usual.

I would think that Ameirca had an equivelnt of an offical secrets act anyway, so surely the first ammendment has never existed in its entirety.

So it starts. Now, if you work for them, you no longer have the right to express your opinion about what they do. That is a recipie for abuse of power if ever there was one.

Oh dear god I can't believe this is happening to America. Damn, I could not live in a country where I couldn't express my opinions in the workplace.

I came back a few days ago. Turns out being alone and bored 10 hours a day drags me back here...

I'm out of classes for the summer, so I've returned to annoy NS General again. Of course, Jocabia and Fass are giving me a run for my money, as usual.

You cannot resist the power of Nationstates..It consumes you...slowly eating away...whatever you have left...*shrug* I think I missed you first time around. Hello, my name is: Dinaverg.

You cannot resist the power of Nationstates..It consumes you...slowly eating away...whatever you have left...*shrug* I think I missed you first time around. Hello, my name is: Dinaverg.

NS has indeed consumed some of my sanity. You probably didn't TOTALLY miss me -- I pop up about once a month and make some randomass post that either kills a thread or gets ignored for all eternity.

I came back a few days ago. Turns out being alone and bored 10 hours a day drags me back here...

I'm out of classes for the summer, so I've returned to annoy NS General again. Of course, Jocabia and Fass are giving me a run for my money, as usual.

Ha. Glad to help. And good to see you back.

Ha. Glad to help. And good to see you back.

and *poke*

NS has indeed consumed some of my sanity. You probably didn't TOTALLY miss me -- I pop up about once a month and make some randomass post that either kills a thread or gets ignored for all eternity.

True...probably...Although I've learned the most from the map thing...Neither angry nor a fruit salad?

and *poke*

What's this? Random poking, you say? :D

and *poke*

*Pillsbury giggle*

Scumbag Sam Scalito 1 - 1st amendment 0

Scumbag Sam Scalito 1 - 1st amendment 0

This is not a first amendment case. It would be like saying not letting me swear as a 911 operator is a first amendment case. You don't have freedom of speech in your official capacity at a job. This was a lawyer that admitted what he was sanctioned for was based on his actions in his official capacity. He was kept from whistleblowing. He didn't follow procedure and that was what got him in trouble. It might be an employee's rights issues, but it is NOT a first amendment case.

I would think that Ameirca had an equivelnt of an offical secrets act anyway, so surely the first ammendment has never existed in its entirety.
FYI, the US does not have a law equivalent to the UK's Official Secrets Act. The various Espionage Acts don't do quite the same thing.

I find it amusing that US posters are attacking the UK for Knife 'Bans' which are actually only amnesty's, when stuff like this is happening in their own back yard. How amusing...

And it Brits versus US in one post. How redundant.


Anyway I tend to agree that this case has little to do with freedom of speech being squelched by federal government. It has much to do with some kind of feeling people have that they have a right to whatever government job they might have (and promotions) no matter their conduct.

I am familiar with corporate lawyers. I've been on the business end. However, what people will bastardize and what is a proper decision is not the same thing. This decision was just. I wish they hadn't had to rule, but the earlier court made it a first amendment issue when they ruled it one and thus the only possible place to rectify the issue was SCOTUS. The earlier court was wrong to call it a first amendment issue.

Now, I fully agree it's an employee rights issue. The first amendment does not apply to individuals in an official capacity. It's not a first amendment issue if a paper fires a journalist for what they write. it is a first amendment if someone else does, however. I can call you names walking past you on the street but not as a support tech for Microsoft. The first amendment is to prevent censorship in your private life or as a private corporation. It has nothing to do with your rights as an employee (unless they are coming after you for what you do in your private life and even that is iffy - drug tests I'm looking at you).
I'm disagreeing with you only because, in this instance, we are not talking about misbehaving in the workplace or blabbing proprietary secrets. We are talking about exposing illegal actions to the authorities. I am not willing to give a company or a government agency the same level of control over me when it comes to hiding their crimes as when it comes to protecting legitimate business.

My concerns center around the ability of whistleblowers to expose wrong-doing and be able to protect themselves from retaliation. Frankly, if I felt the entire organization I worked for was corrupt, they wouldn't have to fire me; I'd quit and then expose the corruption. But I don't want government or corporations (sometimes the same thing in the US) to be able to prevent me from exposing corruption with confidentiality agreements, gag orders, and threats of punishment and other intimidation tactics.

Ask yourself: Should it be considered a disservice to the company, if you report to the CEO that the CFO is embezzling funds? I would think you'd get a promotion for that, but in the scenario of the case in the subject ruling, you'd get fired for that.

Let's expand it and ask, if you signed a confidentiality agreement upon hire, should that prevent you from reporting serious financial crimes (Enron-type stuff, SLA-scandal-type stuff) to the SEC? And if you decide the law is more important, and your crooked bosses try sue you for breaking your confidentiality agreement, should they be more protected by the law than you are? In other words, should they get to punish you for exposing their crimes? What message does that send to other employees faced with criminal action by their bosses?

And then, in our imaginations (backed up by plenty of historical cases), we can expand this to government corruption and the far greater implications of that. Should corrupt officials who violate their public duties be allowed to hide the evidence and punish those who expose them?

I don't think so. You may well be right that this SCOTUS decision does nothing more than underscore the status quo, but in the current political climate, I look at it more suspiciously. Time will tell, no doubt.

I'm disagreeing with you only because, in this instance, we are not talking about misbehaving in the workplace or blabbing proprietary secrets. We are talking about exposing illegal actions to the authorities. I am not willing to give a company or a government agency the same level of control over me when it comes to hiding their crimes as when it comes to protecting legitimate business. *snip*

I agree. The problem is you're not talking about the first amendment. You are talking about a very real and very important issue, but not a first amendment issue. I fully agree that they should not be able to hide their crimes or punish people for exposing them. However, companies do all kinds of things that would get them into some level of trouble or another with their clients. Imagine if it was decided telling those clients was a first amendment issue.

What we need is some form of whistleblower's law that allows employees to be protected when exposing illegal acts.

I agree. The problem is you're not talking about the first amendment. You are talking about a very real and very important issue, but not a first amendment issue. I fully agree that they should not be able to hide their crimes or punish people for exposing them. However, companies do all kinds of things that would get them into some level of trouble or another with their clients. Imagine if it was decided telling those clients was a first amendment issue.
Okay, I'll grant that there should not be a 1st Amendment protection for telling the client that your boss said she (the client) has a fat ass and is stupid but he'd still hit that if he got drunk enough. And even in the situation I was in, where my boss was defrauding the client, the proper course was for me to tell my other bosses (which I did) and, if it was serious enough, to tell the state authorities. But it would not have been appropriate for me to call the client about it. I'm not arguing for a carte blanche. I guess, I'm just arguing for more distrust of government, not less. :)

What we need is some form of whistleblower's law that allows employees to be protected when exposing illegal acts.
We have a federal act that protects whistleblowers, but apparently, some time ago it was decided it doesn't apply to government employees. I mean actual government employees, not employees of government contractors. And several administrations of both parties have done their bit to weaken the existing law, in answer to corporate interests.

The Green that is Bush has ruined us! Down with this dictator! How dare he share the name of our great founder, the man declared king of america and founder, insted, of the republic! Down with Bush! Let the Red rebelion commence!