[Clips] Court rules no whistle-blower free-speech right

[Tyler Durden]

"The case had been closely watched for its affect on the at-work,
  free-speech rights of the nation's 21 million public employees. About 100
  cases involving internal communications are brought each year in federal
  court."

21 MILLION. What's that, 20% of the workforce?

-TD



>From: "R.A. Hettinga" <rah at shipwright.com>
>To: cypherpunks at jfet.org
>Subject: [Clips] Court rules no whistle-blower free-speech right
>Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 22:14:31 -0400
>
>--- begin forwarded text
>
>
>   Delivered-To: rah at shipwright.com
>   Delivered-To: clips at philodox.com
>   Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 22:13:14 -0400
>   To: Philodox Clips List <clips at philodox.com>
>   From: "R.A. Hettinga" <rah at shipwright.com>
>   Subject: [Clips] Court rules no whistle-blower free-speech right
>   Reply-To: rah at philodox.com
>   Sender: clips-bounces at philodox.com
>
>
><http://today.reuters.com/misc/PrinterFriendlyPopup.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2006-05-30T210703Z_01_N30454508_RTRUKOC_0_US-COURT-WHISTLEBLOWERS.xml>
>
>
>
>   Court rules no whistle-blower free-speech right
>
>   Tue May 30, 2006 5:07 PM ET
>
>
>   By James Vicini
>
>   WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A closely divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled on
>   Tuesday that government whistle-blowers are not protected by free-speech
>   rights when they face employer discipline for trying to expose possible
>   misconduct at work.
>
>   By a 5-4 vote, the high court ruled against a California prosecutor who
>   said he was demoted, denied a promotion and transferred for trying to
>   expose a lie by a county sheriff's deputy in a search-warrant affidavit.
>
>   Adopting the position of the Los Angeles prosecutor's office and the 
>U.S.
>   Justice Department, the high court ruled that a public employee has no
>   First Amendment right in speech expressed as part of performing
>   job-required duties.
>
>   Writing for the court majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said there is
>   protection for whistle-blowers in federal and state laws and rules of
>   conduct for government attorneys.
>
>   The case had been closely watched for its affect on the at-work,
>   free-speech rights of the nation's 21 million public employees. About 
>100
>   cases involving internal communications are brought each year in federal
>   court.
>
>   Steven Shapiro of the American Civil Liberties Union said, "In an age of
>   excessive government secrecy, the Supreme Court has made it easier to
>   engage in a government cover-up by discouraging internal 
>whistle-blowing."
>
>   Other ACLU officials predicted the ruling will deter government 
>employees
>   from speaking out about wrongdoing for fear of losing their jobs.
>
>   Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney Richard Ceballos had sued 
>his
>   employer for retaliating against him for exercising his free-speech 
>rights
>   when he reported suspected wrongdoing in a memo to senior officials in 
>his
>   department.
>
>   The justices overturned a ruling by a U.S. appeals court that Ceballos'
>   action was protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution because 
>he
>   was speaking on an issue of public concern.
>
>   Kennedy said exposing government inefficiency and misconduct was a 
>matter
>   of considerable significance, and that various measures have been 
>adopted
>   to protect employees and provide checks on supervisors who would order
>   unlawful or inappropriate actions.
>
>   "When public employees made statement pursuant to their official duties,
>   the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes,
>   and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from 
>employer
>   discipline," he wrote.
>
>   JUDICIAL INTRUSION IN THE WORKPLACE?
>
>   Kennedy said a ruling for Ceballos would result in a "new, permanent and
>   intrusive role" for the courts in overseeing communications between
>   government workers and their superiors, replacing managerial discretion
>   with judicial supervision.
>
>   He was joined by the court's conservatives -- Chief Justice John Roberts
>   and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
>
>   The court's liberals, Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth 
>Bader
>   Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, dissented.
>
>   Stevens wrote, "The notion that there is a categorical difference 
>between
>   speaking as a citizen and speaking in the course of one's employment is
>   quite wrong." He called the majority ruling "misguided."
>
>   Souter wrote in a separate dissent that government employees who speak 
>out
>   about official wrongdoing should be eligible for First Amendment 
>protection
>   against reprisals.
>
>   --
>   -----------------
>   R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah at ibuc.com>
>   The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/>
>   44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
>   "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
>   [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
>   experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
>   _______________________________________________
>   Clips mailing list
>   Clips at philodox.com
>   http://www.philodox.com/mailman/listinfo/clips
>
>--- end forwarded text
>
>
>--
>-----------------
>R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah at ibuc.com>
>The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/>
>44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
>"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
>[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
>experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'