Is aggressive influence - coercion or blackmail free speech? Is lying - fraud - free speech? Coercion, blackmail, libel, slander, and misleading speech with the purpose to harm or defraud have legal definitions and are regulated under law.
That's the problem in a nutshell.
Breaking laws and legal contracts, even unjust ones carries a cost, even if it's just a day in court to prove the law or legal contract cannot withstand scrutiny.
While a whistleblower has a right to call attention to illegal or dangerous activities, there's also the disgruntled and equally liable employee who wants to stir shit by "exposing" strategies or activities out of context or picking on a few particular activities to justify bringing down an organization as payback for not getting what s/he wants from it.
I'm not saying Snowden is one or the other when he blew the whistle and exposed confidential material from his employer to the public. He did what he did, whether it was for his stated reasons, or for others, or a mix of the two. I personally have a problem with his eventual flight to Russia, but that's because of my feelings about the state of and respect for information security - especially personal information, not just state information - in Russia. Russia isn't Iceland or Switzerland; there's a geo-political element in Russia that is just as interested in hegemony and is just as fascist as elements in the US are.
He has the right to have his day in court - especially since he is not in the military and not considered extra-constitutional. Who knows, he may get an impartial judge and jury - because I'm sure he will be able to access ACLU lawyers who are willing to make the point that he isn't a shit stirrer, but an actual whistleblower, and deserves protection.
That's what they're there for. To give everyone a chance to actually look at the legal issues behind all aspects in case by case situations, not only popular opinion, social trends, or traditions.
The ability for others to twist a position that ensures fairness under the Constitution for their own benefit is no reason to throw out that position for the people who need it.
(Though I do have some question to the idea that the ability to purchase rights being the same constitutionally as the rights of people in general...)
As to the potential for social ostracism issue that goes along with being a whistleblower, that's part of the risk of whistleblowing.
In history, most heroes - especially whistleblowers and those who seek to fight for the betterment of society at large only become Heroes after they're dead. Being a Hero isn't easy, and requires courage to face the fact one may have to be considered a villain while society comes to terms with what needs to be done. A Hero takes his or her lumps.
The expectation of being lauded a Hero for doing the right thing while still living is for deluded Walter Mitty types or narcissistic fame seekers.
Haele
= new reply since forum marked as read
