View Full Version : Another nail in the coffin

05-30-2006, 03:02 PM
Aside from NPR, not a whisper in the mainstream press...

SCOTUS, in it's infinite wisdom, decided today that the 1st ammendment does not apply to government workers. They do not enjoy relatively unrestricted freedom of speech like the rest of us.

I'll bet the government feels more secure now that nobody can blow the whistle on them with impunity.

How do YOU feel? :eek:

John of Phoenix
05-30-2006, 04:01 PM

I forget where I first heard this. "We don't call it the 'justice system' anymore. It's the 'legal system.' "

05-30-2006, 05:11 PM
A surge in whistle-blowing ... and reprisals

National security vs. whistle-blowing

NEW YORK – Former intelligence officer Russ Tice wants to tell Congress about what he believes were illegal actions undertaken by the National Security Agency in its highly sophisticated eavesdropping programs. But he can't. He's been warned by the NSA that the information is so highly classified that even members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees - who are charged with overseeing the work of the intelligence community - don't have clearance to hear about them. If Mr. Tice talks at the hearings early next month, he could face criminal prosecution.

State secrets? Just exactly who is the state?

George Roberts
05-30-2006, 05:25 PM
That is not what the Supreme Court said.

I believe the Court said that writing one does as part of a paid job is not an exercise of free speach.

The employee had the right and perhaps the responsibility to make his comments outside of the work place.

The empoyee was wrong.

05-30-2006, 08:07 PM

... (something) of the United States ... but what ... Seriously????

05-30-2006, 08:29 PM
supreme court of the united states

05-30-2006, 08:29 PM
Freeked out paranoids like to use acronyms. It makes them feel safer.

05-30-2006, 11:43 PM
Freeked out paranoids like to use acronyms. It makes them feel safer.
Hmmm... I am not a republican and I used it! :p

05-31-2006, 12:39 PM
Vast overstatement of the decision.

John of Phoenix
05-31-2006, 12:55 PM
Did I get this right?

If someone has a beef at work and goes to their supervisor with it, they can be reprimanded, passed over, even fired with no legal recourse.

However, if they go public (the press as an example), the supervisor can do nothing because they’re exercising free speech.

Ian McColgin
05-31-2006, 01:14 PM
The decision was driven by a strong-administration ideology and murmurings about protection if one goes public are disengenuous at best. These are the same ideologues who seek prosecution if someone does go public.

Unfortunatly, whistle-blower laws are weak where they exist at all. That's why up to now defending whistle-blowers has also relied on the First Ammendment that protects a person from government action for exercising speach.

I must say I utterly fail to see how the mere fact that remarks were made in the line of duty makes telling the truth a firing offence.

Evan Showell
05-31-2006, 01:18 PM
You guys really don't get this one, do you.

This is the codification of the pro-Haliburton Rule.

If you are a government employee and you notice, for example, Haliburton, committing fraud, waste and absue of taxpayer funds and you complain about it, you can be fired with no legal recourse.

What about protecting the Kleptocracy don't you understand?