Slip Sliding Away...

[rpm]

Your constitutional rights, that is:

U.S. court rules no whistle-blower free-speech right

WASHINGTON, May 30 (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.

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.

Justice David Souter wrote in a dissent that government employees who speak out about about official wrongdoing should be eligible for First Amendment protection against reprisals.

So ratting out crooked cops is now illegal? WTH is wrong with our country?

[Skuzzy]

Politicians covering thier butts.  It is a big step to allow them to openly commit heinous/immoral/illegal acts without worrying about employees squealing on them.
It will serve to reduce the stress the politicians are under.  No more worrying about that employee who might have heard something, or seen something.  No more worrying about how to hide something they should not be doing.
Without all those worries, they will be in a better position to finish up thier illegal business faster and move on to spending more time on how to get more money in thier pockets.

They may even find time to actually vote on something,....LOL!  Nah,..that ain;t gonna happen, unless it benefits them.

[Mini D]

This isn't a law, this is a court ruling. Politicians covering their butts? They may benifit from it, but they weren't part of this process.

There's nothing that says anything was illegal. The "victim" was actually the plantiff and it was deemed that he couldn't sue based on the fact that he was a whistle blower and the company held it against him. It had nothing to do with the legality of whistle blowing.

I think that anyone believing that being a whistle blower should not mean they risk their position or job is actually a very silly belief.

[Hangtime]

dammit.. I pull out the ammo cans, start polishing brass, hunt up my rambo bandana....

then you pour water on the fire when i wuz hoping fer a BBQ.

*sigh*

Is it evil to hope for a revolution?

[Toad]

A bit more background. Before polishing brass or dismissing it all and having another martini, it can't hurt to try and understand the basics of the case.

The case, Garcetti v. Ceballos, involved a deputy district attorney in Los Angeles who, in an official internal memo, reported what he believed were misrepresentations in a search warrant prepared by a sheriff's deputy. Defense lawyers used the memo to challenge the warrant's validity.

Richard Ceballos, the deputy district attorney, claimed his bosses then mistreated him in a number of ways, including denying him a promotion. He sued, saying his bosses had violated his civil rights by punishing him for speaking out.

A federal court originally dismissed Ceballos' claim, but an appeals court reversed that decision, saying Ceballos' memo was a matter of public concern, so it was protected.

Kennedy said the appeals court got it wrong by stopping its analysis at the content of Ceballos' memo. The lower court, he said, also needed to determine whether Ceballos' comments in the memo were related to his job.

"When public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes," Kennedy wrote. "The Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline."

From Knight-Ridder

I'm still mulling this one over. I'll probably wait for Nash to weigh in and then just take the opposite position.  

[john9001]

you do not "polish your brass" when preparing for gorilla warfare, you darken your brass so it will not reflect light when you attack at night.

you people know nothing about gorilla warfare.

[Hangtime]

When hunting gorillias, I'll keep it in mind. Meanwhile, I've got a coupla thousand rounds of pakastani .308 that looks like it was buried below the flood line on the banks of the ganges river for 20 years.

If i don't polish it a bit with brass wool it tends to not fit all that well in the chamber.

Which would piss me off immensely, cause i'm kinda particular about guns working.. gorillias wouldn't care; I do.

(BTW, sez right here in my copy of Guerilla[/b] Warfare For Dummies that ammo color is optional, while bandannas must be red and fatigues green)

[Yeager]

much ado about nothing imo......

The only right you should be worried about is your right to keep and bear arms.  All other rights are dependant on that.  Last time I checked my barrel was clear and my powder dry.

[Brenjen]

I'm still mulling this one over. I'll probably wait for Nash to weigh in and then just take the opposite position

 MEEEE TOOOO! Except, I'll just get pissed off when nothing happens to him for......ah nevermind. Just count me as opposed.

[Brenjen]

Originally posted by Hangtime
When hunting gorillias, I'll keep it in mind. Meanwhile, I've got a coupla thousand rounds of pakastani .308 that looks like it was buried below the flood line on the banks of the ganges river for 20 years.

If i don't polish it a bit with brass wool it tends to not fit all that well in the chamber.

Which would piss me off immensely, cause i'm kinda particular about guns working.. gorillias wouldn't care; I do.

(BTW, sez right here in my copy of Guerilla Warfare For Dummies that ammo color is optional, while bandannas must be red and fatigues green) [/B]

 By the South African battle packs, they are cheap & hermetically sealed.

[Hangtime]

Yup.. got two full 1280 round cases of SA .308 in the ground right now. Got it fer .12 cents a round. The 'pakistani river bottom' was .06 a round.. had 5,000 rounds of that.. about 2,000 left. I leave it out of the 'stash' for general target and range day practice for the kids.

... or gorillia hunting.

[BGBMAW]

Indians have  .07 cents a round..Thank You ...Come Again..Would you like a Chutney Squishy?

and no hangtime..its not bad to think that: )

[Hangtime]

ROFL!!  "Chutney Squishy"  !!

[Gunslinger]

"When public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes," Kennedy wrote. "The Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline."

I think that pretty much sums it up.  If he had made it a private corrispondence or reported it through what ever quality assurance the system has then he might not have had the case suffer as a result.  

I can't just run to the nearest media camera and say "I think an ejection seat was installed incorrectly on an aircraft sent to Iraq" while in uniform.  I would hope that my command would hammer me weather true or not.

[Hangtime]

USA Today:

An informed source in the military today confirmed that US Air Force aircraft with ejection seat systems that were known to be installed incorrectly were sent to Iraq...