Saturday, October 5, 2019
Whistle blowers
Yesterday we learned about whistle blowers and the importance that they have on society. Although many people would not willingly put themselves in danger in fear of losing their jobs or other dangers, whistle-bowers would do exactly that to initiate justice. An example of this is Daniel Ellsberg who was a whistleblower during the Vietnam war. He worked for the Department of Defence and took a 7000 page report of classified information that the United States had done and the effects of it during the war. He previously asked some congressman to photocopy the information to let the public know what the situation in Vietnam was with the American troops, but they said that classified info should stay classified. Ellsberg took the report to the New York Times and they published the fist couple pages of the report. The government was furious with Ellsberg because he released top secret information that the public wasn't supposed to know about, but it was hard for them to stop the new York times from publishing. In addition, the American people came to know that in reality the American troops in Vietnam were losing the battle, and fast. Although Ellsberg was fired and prevented from working for the government again, his actions ultimately helped inform the people about some important information that the government was with holding from them. Similarly a more recent whistle blower called Edward Snowden who worked for the government and exposed the fact that many of the people were under mass surveillance by the United States government and its allies. This meant that the government could essentially tap into everything at anytime, which is a major infringement on the right to privacy. This forced him to exile in Russia where he grew to like the life that he had built up there. While some people had argued that he was a hero for the American people, others argued that he had exposed something that the government had a right to not tell anyone about. Even 6 something years later, the debate still continues, although the harshness of accusations has lessened. In addition, whistle-blowers can also expose something that may be considered a threat to the safety of the united states as a whole, no matter how pure his or her intentions are. It's important to remember that there is a fine line between being someone that is advocating for justice and someone unintentionally putting the united states as risk, and that the line is very easily crossable.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with your argument that not all whistleblowers are justified in their whistleblowing and that if a whistleblower puts the country at risk with revealing confidential information, the information is not protected under freedom of speech. However, what does it mean for information to pose a risk to the country's security. This was stated in the case New York Times Company v. United States (https://www.oyez.org/cases/1970/1873). For almost all confidential information, people could argue that it puts United States' security at risk (ruining the United States' reputation, revealing information the United States wants to hide from its enemies, taking away trust of the federal government, etc.). In my opinion, the Supreme Court should draw the line only when it is clear that the information poses an actual physical ("clear and present") danger. Information that may ruin the reputation of the United States or that takes away people's trust of the federal government do not fall under this category; however, information that is being hidden from enemies could fall under this category if it could lead to attacks on U.S. soil by its enemies.
ReplyDeleteI agree and disagree and still have questions about this whole topic in general. I agree that to stop freedom of speech against the government, there must be a "clear and present" danger, as Aaron mentioned it. However, I disagree with the fact that taking away trust from the government doesn't fall under this category. I feel like it is a very case-to-case subject. For example, I don't know if anyone has watched the 100 and if not the SPOILER ALERT do not read on, but near the beginning of the show, the main government on a spaceship found a problem with the oxygen supply, meaning that unless they killed a portion of their population, they would all run out of oxygen. Like Ellsberg, one man decides to go public with this news without permission. The controversy with this was that like the Vietnam war, this would take away the trust and possible cause riots and revolt and make the situation even more chaotic. The government wouldn't just have to deal with the external problem, but also with their own people too. So my question is, when and where do we draw the line? How do we know that there isn't a clear and present danger in loss of trust? When do we know if it is just petty loss of trust like an affair or something like a secret war that will cause lots of riot?
ReplyDeleteSource : Netflix.com
I am compelled to agree with Aaron, that loss of trust in the government should not be considered a “clear and present danger” because the government should be able to be questioned by the people(with whom their power resides). However, you bring up an interesting point: trust in the government can be petty and unimportant but also essential to the organized function of the state. While the US is a democracy, the majority may not always be objective enough to know what’s truly best for the country. That said, I think that in the circumstances of whistleblowing in the US, there would not be enough loss of trust to result in complete chaos. The loss of trust would be more concentrated on the individual subjected to the whistleblowing – whether it be the President, members of Congress, Justices, or even members of a particular political party – rather than a loss of trust in the government system as a whole. Given this, a “loss of trust in the government” more accurately means a “loss of trust in one person in government,” and with our democratic system, the people can change the government(or the ideals and actions of the government) through voting untrustworthy people out of office and trustworthy people into office. This type of whistleblowing actually informs citizens and allows them to truly have a say in the governing process, so I feel it should be protected by the 1st Amendment – as long as it doesn't pose any other "clear and present danger."
DeleteI think you make some great points in the post but as Aaron said, it is very important to remember that he causes a very real danger to the United States. For example, if someone decided to leak information about an airport that has sub par security, this could obliviously be dangerous to the country, but leaking information about past events is not likely to harm the country in any way. I think without the possibility of whistle blowers the government and other organizations could be up to much more shady business.
ReplyDeleteI agree in that for whistleblowers there exists a fine line between whether what they say is protected under the First Amendment. Under the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, it is protected if there is a clear violation of law or regulation happening and it is blown. However, there is a lot of other factors that play into whether a whistleblower can be protected or not, such as Non Disclosure Acts, and also guidelines and severe punishments for whistleblowers who knowingly publish false information. For federal employees it is also hard sometimes to manage protection from retribution because the job of protecting Whistleblower's rights come from Congress themselves. In the end, whistleblowing is a complicated matter, and one that remains vital towards keeping the government accountable to the people, but also must have vital restrictions on it to preserve the national security of the nation.
ReplyDelete