Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

AikidoSoul

(2,150 posts)
15. Excellent post and documentation. The point needs to be made that
Sat Aug 20, 2016, 03:22 PM
Aug 2016

the Supreme Court made the decision that government employee whistleblowers essentially don't have First Amendment rights. Garcetti v. Ceballos is ripe for abuse by those in power over them, and punishment is often the result when an agency or government official is put on the scrutiny block for actions deemed questionable.


Summary of Garcetti v. Cweballos:

Statements made by public employees pursuant to their official duties are not protected by the First Amendment from employer discipline. Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006), is a U.S. Supreme Court decision involving First Amendment free speech protections for government employees.


Even everyday citizens are victimized by the powerful for their political activism, be it politics or environmental issues Many are followed, harrassed, lose their funding, lose their jobs, are shot at, their houses burned down, etc. This is real and DUers should take the time to undersand that this is not what Democracy is supposed to look like.

Harrassment and punishment is becoming more of an issue everyday for activists.

Dear God. When I was in grade school we were told that this was what the Communist countries did to their citizens.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

It does seem hypocritical bluedye33139 Aug 2016 #1
We need a whistleblowing process/platform that enables real reform. Period. cali Aug 2016 #2
What would the proper way for Sterling to have alerted the press to the Iranian nuclear operation? bluedye33139 Aug 2016 #3
I didn't say to the press. cali Aug 2016 #4
I'm sorry, I was following your link to the Sterling case, which arguably isn't a reason to bluedye33139 Aug 2016 #5
I totally agree! cpamomfromtexas Aug 2016 #6
thanks. cali Aug 2016 #7
people who murder indiscriminately using drones are not concerned about this guy nt msongs Aug 2016 #8
Characterizing as "hate?" I totally DISAGREE. Hortensis Aug 2016 #9
Fear! Fear! Fear! Fear! Fear! Fear! wildbilln864 Aug 2016 #10
Wasn't trying to trigger your fight or flight response. Hortensis Aug 2016 #11
you are mistaken. I am not running. wildbilln864 Aug 2016 #12
Who said they haven't also performed positive and Hortensis Aug 2016 #13
ok. n/t wildbilln864 Aug 2016 #14
Excellent post and documentation. The point needs to be made that AikidoSoul Aug 2016 #15
Kick and rec -- NT AikidoSoul Aug 2016 #16
If the jury was right, Sterling is no "whistle-blower." The jury found that he leaked details struggle4progress Aug 2016 #17
I just served on a jury for this even though I had recommended it. Ron Obvious Aug 2016 #18
perhaps they thought that would make you a perfect whistleblower nashville_brook Aug 2016 #19
Self righteous assholes who call themselves whistle blowers... uponit7771 Aug 2016 #20
BIG kick and rec Arazi Aug 2016 #21
The gullibility of some to fall for a professional liar is disturbing. msanthrope Aug 2016 #22
Agree with you! bobGandolf Aug 2016 #23
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The hate for whistleblowe...»Reply #15