High Court Trims Whistleblower Rights 718
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."'"
Unfortunate (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Unfortunate (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Unfortunate (Score:4, Funny)
Please, what a lot of fearmongering and nonsense. Communist governments spend vast sums of nonexistant money, they tend to create an elite "politburo" class of elite rich while everyone else remains poor, they begin wars and conquor countries to control resources they otherwise wouldn't have and couldn't afford, and they promote lies in schools [sfgate.com] that run contrary to science and evidence.
Now tell me, HOW is America becoming to a pseudo-communist form of government??
Re:Unfortunate (Score:2)
Re:Unfortunate (Score:2)
As for a response to all of that; since the whole post was apparently a clump of sarcasm, I wont bother replying since it's all laid out in front of people. However, I'd love to see someone respond anyway.
Mod parent down; -1, Mentally Ill (Score:4, Insightful)
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"?
Re:Unfortunate (Score:5, Informative)
Communism is an economic theory, the people currently running the US have opposite beliefs.
Re:Unfortunate (Score:4, Insightful)
Restricting some anti-social activities of individuals for the benefit of a group is called a "society". There is no way, under any conditions, to create a society without some restrictions and compromises that have to be enforced on its members in some way. Period.
It may be limited by a responsible government, but it asserts that right and uses it. If allowed to grow unchecked, it will eventually become totalitarian in nature.
True. But this is also true of any government, and thus of any society. Power corrupts. Governance requires power. Ergo, governance, of any kind, corrupts. That is why there is a need to create a system of checks and balances to control and restrict that power. The Grand United States Experiment, although pretty much completely failed by now, was very successful for a period of time, showing that such a system is possible, although Version 1.0 has clearly failed to withstand a concentrated assault of elements present in any society: those motivated by greed and lust for power (read: Evil) who always, since the dawn of history, seek to subjegate their respective societies for their own gain, quite irrespective of their political and economic structures at the time.
The government eventually finds that it must monitor it's people in order to produce what it considers an ideal economy.
Or "security". Or "moral values". Or "one and True Religion". Etc and so on. See above. All forms of governance, and thus all societies, are subject to the self-corrupting nature of that governance. The answer is to create a system where that governance is under control, not abandoning the governance and thus in effect the society itself. Anarchy is a state where the strongest wolves hunt the sheep and kill their competing wolf challengers with impunity. Anarchy is what all societies of the world have evolved to avoid, even at the cost of monarchies and tyrannies, as even those were empirically proven to be preferrable to Anarchy.
Asserting that there is no link is as absurd as asserting that socialism always and inevitably leads to a police state, but not quite as abusurd as claiming that they are fundamentally incompatible.
There is a link between any form of governance and thus any sort of enforcement of a particular economic model and a possibility of a tyrannical government. Simply, every government, and thus every society, carries with it its own seeds of tyranny, abuse and self-destruction. And they will carry those seeds indefintely into the future, as long as greedy and sociopathic individuals keep getting born. The trick is in not allowing those seeds to germinate.
Re:Unfortunate (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes. However, I was responding to the snippy "Language evolves. Deal with it" remark. De-evolution is what we have in this particular case. For whatever reason.
Substituting one defect (behavioral) for another (educational) does not magically turn de-evolution into evolution.
Re:Unfortunate (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Unfortunate (Score:3, Insightful)
I think (Score:5, Informative)
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).
Re:Unfortunate (Score:3, Interesting)
Athens took care of its poorer citizens through welfare programs that exceeded the GDP of Athens. Athens paid more in jury pay alone (which basically served as social security) than it collected in taxes from citizens. They could get away with it because Athens used it's considerable milita
Not pseudo-communism. Fascism. (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
From Webster's Unabridged (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:From Webster's Unabridged (Score:4, Interesting)
Define "dictatorship". 700 "signing statements" in which the president says he's above the law pretty much seals that definition in my book.
2. Bush certainly isn't forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism
Unless you consider "free speech zones". Or covert republican operatives posing as reporters in the White House press pool.
3. We're a capitalist society. The government doesn't control industry.
No, it only invades countries as an excuse to subsidize industry.
4. Nationalism isn't necessarily bad, unless it goes to extremes, which we haven't
Define "extreme". (I would argue that the word is poorly used in your sentance, and seems aimed towards making the entire statement non-declarative, because the meaning of the statement depends on one's individual definition of what is or is not extreme. - it belies an underlying attitude of intention to deter actual debate - it smells like an attempt to assert an indisputable non-fact).
5. I haven't seen any signs of racism in the current administration
Just because they have a couple of colored people on staff, does not mean that racism is not enshrined in policy.
Re:From Webster's Unabridged (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Not pseudo-communism. Fascism. (Score:5, Informative)
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
Re:Not pseudo-communism. Fascism. (Score:4, Interesting)
The disturbing trend is that certain political parties are starting to align too heavily with religions, and the SCOTUS is not acting like as much of a balancing influence as it used to. I wouldn't argue we're becoming facist, but I would argue that the US is starting to fracture. Pity so much of the world is, too. The UK and EU are prime examples of this. If someone can point out a shining example of good, noble government I'd love to see it.
-WS
Re:Not pseudo-communism. Fascism. (Score:3, Interesting)
For easiness, figurehead of such regime below will be called "the president". Anyway all such modern regimes claim to be democratic or republic.
1. "Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism." See (3).
2. "Disdain for the importance of human rights." There is only one man
Re:Not pseudo-communism. Fascism. (Score:3, Insightful)
The United States clearly shows your signs 1, 3, and 7.
The United States less clearly shows signs 2, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14
The only signs I'd say that the United States isn't showing at all are 5, 8, and 11 - and the current president has tried really hard for 8.
Re:Not pseudo-communism. Fascism. (Score:3, Insightful)
Points 1 - 10 are dead on for that period of time.
11 and 12 pretty much describe the 1950s in America and the West.
13...That's how the Democrats got all their money...Can we say Joe Kennedy?
14...Well, that's the specialty of the Dems also. They invented election fraud in the modern era.
Re:Unfortunate (Score:5, Insightful)
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).
mod parent up! (Score:2)
Re:mod parent up! (Score:4, Insightful)
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
Re:mod parent up! (Score:3, Informative)
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 definit
Pseudo-communism (Score:2)
Read my post again next time
It's like this country is moving to a pseudo-communist form of government
Re:Pseudo-communism (Score:3, Insightful)
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 communi
Re:Unfortunate (Score:5, Informative)
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!
Feudalism (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Feudalism (Score:4, Insightful)
As the recent events in France show, the European population still believe the state is obliged to take care of them and no European politicians have the guts to stand up and explain that this simply is not possible.
Re:Unfortunate (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes.
It's like this country is moving to a pseudo-communist form of government
No, the thing is that China is becoming more and more capitalistic (despite the communist talk), while the US is becoming more and more repressive. Therefore both are becoming capitalistic, repressive regimes.
Re:Unfortunate (Score:3, Informative)
There's a little missconception on your comment. Communism is a political ideology which basis itself on economic and social issues, much like capitalism. When we talk about government organization and structure, communist countries have generally opted for the totalitarian and authoritarian forms of government. According to the more recent news, what the US
Re:Unfortunate (Score:3, Insightful)
We'd like to take a moment to thank the Democratic Party for knuckling under and refusing to fillibuster the nominees which have now shut down a citizen's right to report a crime. As Justice Steven says, there is no difference
Re:Unfortunate (Score:5, Interesting)
"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 [google.com] for a good example of how difficult government whistle blowing was before this decision. note: her saga isn't over yet.
you see? (Score:5, Funny)
America is changing.... (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:America is changing.... (Score:2, Informative)
Yes.
To the Person Sitting in Darkness - Mark Twain [virginia.edu]
KFG
Re:America is changing.... (Score:5, Insightful)
On the surface this ruling might seem bad too, but I'm not so sure. From what I read it means that government employees can be fired for what they say at work. Just like me in my private sector job. This seems like a no brainer to me.
Re:America is changing.... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
The best summary of what's happening (Score:4, Insightful)
"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.
Re:America is changing.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:America is changing.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, because you assumed the principles believed in were the ones they said they did.
I think this is exactly right. Things aren't so much different than they were 20, 30, or even 50 years ago now. The fundemental failing of this administration is their inability to hide it. Their mistakes, miscues, and lame attempts at misdirection have been so poorly managed that the corruption inherent in the system is now obvious. And it is so obvious that the "government" has lost even plausible deniability.
Re:America is changing.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:America is changing.... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:America is changing.... (Score:4, Interesting)
You know, I keep hearing about this "real world" thing! Certainly is different from what I learned about in school, though I sure started learning about that well before I was out.
I've seen many strange things here. See, they told me this "Constitution" thing was the highest law of the land, and that the President even swore an oath to defend it! Must not work so well in this "real world" place, so it seems-and no one even minds when he admits to blatantly violating it!
But the strangest thing I've seen here is that one attitude is the EXACT one they tried to drill into my head at school, too:
"The way it is always is the way it should be. Don't work for change."
As long as I'm getting rid of everything they tried to cram into my head at school...I'm getting rid of that first.
The Origins of Human Violence (Score:3, Interesting)
FreeDumb of Speech (Score:5, Funny)
The real shame (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The real shame (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm a two time Bush voter. Even with his shorcomings(and he does have many), the other candidate in the general election was even more unpalatable to me.
LK
Re:The real shame (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The real shame (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The real shame (Score:3, Interesting)
That is, what good is the right to bear arms (and thereby keep government in check) if there is no serious threat of use of those arms? The RKBA becomes an empty threat...
I would bet that if the govn't banned all guns -- not just NFA-restricted arms (automatics, suppressors, etc.), bu
Re:The real shame (Score:3, Informative)
You should write to whoever deals with your ballots to let them know there was an error on your sheet that made it so only two candidates appeared.
Tell this to the thousands of dead (Score:3, Insightful)
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 kill
Re:Tell this to the thousands of dead (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Tell this to the thousands of dead (Score:4, Insightful)
"Is that torture?" [newyorker.com]
Rape, according to a military investigation [findlaw.com]
>How would you interrogate people and obtain information if lives were on the line?
I'd try something that works. Look at what John McCain, a torture victim, has to say on that subject. Torture does not get you information to save lives, it gets you whatever you want to hear.
Stop and think that a lot of police departments hire former MPs. These people maybe, the ones who weren't caught for sure, will be questioning Americans in a few years.
>But let me ask you, what damage to our civil rights actually occurred
USAPATRIOT section 215, searches without warrant, review, or opportuity to challenge after the fact. "Free speech zones" surrounded by barbed wire. Open ended detention of US citizens without legal counsel or court review. Not all under the current administration but all within the last few years.
Re:Tell this to the thousands of dead (Score:3, Insightful)
Serbia, Iraq, Syria, and Aghanistan. You can look it up.
The countries that are at odds with the US have been for a long time. Many people just didn't realize it. Americans are so self-centered it barely occured to them that people might resent our power, wealth and politics.
If you think people in the Middle East only started to hate the US recently, then perhaps you can explain the past 30 years of terrorist attacks, or the people who spe
Give me a fucking break. (Score:3, Insightful)
Please. At least a dozen people were KILLED [salon.com] 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?
Re:Tell this to the thousands of dead (Score:3, Insightful)
Talk about hyperbole.
This is just a smokescreen.
Bush created a situation to REMOVE OIL PRODUCTION FROM THE MARKET.
This drove up speculative investment, which, in turn, jacked up the price of oil from $20/bbl in 1999 to over $70/bbl today. Who profits? Exxon/Mobil sure as hell did. Nobody disputes that, it's in their SEC filings.
Who suffered? The same idiots who bought H2 Hummers and slapped a yellow-ribbon magnet and a "kick their a
Misconduct (Score:5, Funny)
This case would be about "legal" (Score:3, Informative)
Re:This case would be about "legal" (Score:3, Informative)
Re:There's *legal* whistleblowing and illegal (Score:5, Interesting)
Headline Is A Little Misleading (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Headline Is A Little Misleading (Score:2, Insightful)
There are a whole bunch of other laws that say what kind of action can and cannot be taken, however.
The quote from the article is:
This is the beginning of the situation where a whole society sees a terrible wrongness and no one will say a word because they are terrified of reprisal. E
Re:Headline Is A Little Misleading (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, that is the quote from the article. The article is only very loosely connected to the actual ruling.
It's a newspaper. If you have ever read a newspaper article on a subject you are intimately familiar with, you would have found that they got most of the major facts wrong. The thing is, they do this to every story. Newspapers are just hopelessly inaccura
Re:Headline Is A Little Misleading (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, and think about it, your words have consequences, which might include you being jailed. There is no first amendment guarantee to others not jailing you because of your words.
Re:Headline Is A Little Misleading (Score:3, Insightful)
Ruling applies to forum posts as well (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Freedom of speech (Score:4, Insightful)
Article summary is flamebait (Score:5, Insightful)
"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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not slander though (Score:3, Insightful)
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/politician
Re:Article summary is flamebait (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Congress (Score:3, Interesting)
The idea that the first amendment allows government employees to speak without fear of discipline or termination is a huge stretch.
Re:Congress (Score:3, Insightful)
I understand that they brought this about to try and reduce the number of frivolous lawsuits, but this is really throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater here.
This has nothing to do with the first amendment (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This has nothing to do with the first amendment (Score:3, Informative)
Alito and the "deciding vote" (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Alito and the "deciding vote" (Score:3, Informative)
Ergo, one could reasonably call Alito the deciding vote.
Re:Alito and the "deciding vote" (Score:5, Informative)
From TFA you didn't read:
National Whistleblower Center (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't beat around the bush. (Score:3, Interesting)
Nothing but news here. No editorializing in sight. Good thing Slashdot has standards.
Article Itself is Misleading! (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
It's worth noting... (Score:3, Insightful)
Alito More Like O'Connor Than Less (Score:3, Interesting)
Is anyone actually reading the decision? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
The decline of the United States (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
The decline of the US: AKA The Long Nebulous Scare (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Speaking just for myself, like.. at home.. and... (Score:3, Funny)
Of course maybe this is GW's way of getting set up to fire some ex Generals
First Amendment Is Under Attack (Score:3, Funny)
"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 [cnn.com]
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?
Re:Be explicit on what the law is targetting (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Drop the FUD; Read the Opinion (Score:5, Interesting)
(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. [supremecourtus.gov] IMHO it's a quite reasonable outcome.
Not that big a deal (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
FUD (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
vast liberal conspiracy? (Score:3, Funny)
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
Meanwhile in Canada (Score:3, Interesting)
And the federal law [www.cbc.ca]