Here is a link to the Christian Science Monitor (May 31, 2006), where one of the top stories explains the Supreme Courts recent ruling regarding whistleblowers: government employees do not enjoy free-speech protection against being disciplined for exposing official misconduct at work.
What do you think this action means for the press?
Well, one point to consider is that important information comes from "whistleblowers," such as the prisoner mistreatment at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and the government's mishandling of their response to Hurricane Katrina. What happens if ordinary citizens cannot ask questions and hold officials accountable? Consider the case of James Hansen, a top climate scientist at NASA, who has a lot of disturbing information to share about our environment. NASA has been trying to screen his speeches and limit press access to him.
If government employees feel that they cannot confront an abuse publicly, how will the public know? Who will hold officials accountable? How will the press get access or even know about this information of whistleblowers are afraid of losing their jobs or being labeled as "unemployable"?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment