• Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 37 other followers

  • May 2006
    S M T W T F S
    « Apr   Jun »
  • Recent Bookmarks:

  • Archives

  • Categories

  • Advertisements

Whistleblowers aren’t constitutionally protected


The Supreme Court made life a bit tougher for government whistleblowers Tuesday, saying the First Amendment doesn’t protect public employees who disclose waste and fraud as part of their jobs.

By a 5-4 margin, the justices said that the government’s interest in effectively managing operations outweighs the interests that protect employee speech, even in cases where employees may be reporting inefficiencies or wrongdoing.

The ruling leaves public employees – about 20 million at the local, state and federal levels – significantly more prone to retaliation from their employers if they speak out in ways that displease their bosses.

In a departure from previous court rulings, Tuesday’s decision focused on the role that employees play when whistle-blowing, rather than the content of their speech. Writing for the court, Justice Anthony Kennedy said employees who speak out while acting in an official capacity essentially forfeit the First Amendment rights they have as citizens, no matter what they say.

I have always been told that I have a right to free speech, but that I don’t have a right to be employed at _____ Company. In fact, when I worked for the MNDaily this blog was actually monitered for any improper speech (I wasn’t allowed to criticize the MNDaily w/o permission). It’s a good thing that public employees are subject to the same rules (at least, some of the same rules) that us in the private sector have to deal with.

Also, shouldn’t whistleblowing be an altruistic action?

Good work Court de Roberts y Scalito.


2 Responses

  1. Altruistic? I do not think there is such a thing.

    However, I would put whistleblowing under the same lines of civil disobedience. You do what you feel you have to do…and accept the consequences.

  2. Altruistic? I would hope so. Especially in instances involving national security. But in the case of Coleen Rowley, not so.
    If you’re ever going to blow the whistle you should be smart enough to realize you’re probably going to lose your job for it. I think someone would have t be mentally ill to assume they should have some sort of protection for ratting out an employer or corporation or whatever. I’m satisfied with the court ruling myself.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: