Whistleblowers: The Hard Part of "Freedom of Speech"


Related image
Image result for whistleblowersFor the past couple months, and really the last three years but this is just the newest thing, the mainstream news outlets have been showing 24 hour coverage of the Trump-Ukraine hearings.  This started when an unnamed whistleblower, now known but not confirmed as Eric Ciaramella, leaked information regarding President Trump and a conversation he had with representatives from Ukraine.  This sparked the latest in a long line of impeachment queries that have been launched against Trump since even before he was sworn in as president; and, as the evidence has been flushed out, it now seems that Ciaramella never had any firsthand knowledge of the claimed incident.  While this is a bad example, it is an example nonetheless of whistleblowing: the act of alerting the masses and news media of wrongdoing by an official or their administration.  Chelsea Maning, Edward Snowden, and Daniel Ellsberg are names that generally come to mind when people talk about whistleblowing.  These are people that have risked life and freedom to do what they thought was right: tell people about wrongdoing when no one else will.  But, these whistleblowers have all been persecuted or imprisoned for pointing out a grievance, and this is where the issue of free speech comes into play.  Obviously, governments don't appreciate it when people point out the wrong they have done.  So, when whistleblowers arise, they are normally met with legal punishment.  While there are some laws that protect whistleblowers, they normally have consequences for speaking up in some form or fashion. 
From my perspective, I think the need for Whistleblowers is real, but only if they are doing what is good and true.  People who take on governments, especially people who present a government's mistakes or corruption out to the public, are normally doing so from a standpoint of truth or freedom.  This is a good thing, and I believe it is something the Founding Fathers took into account when forming our country, as they came from a tyrannical government that they could not speak out against without imprisonment or death.  But, having said all that, people need to be aware that people who label themselves as whistleblowers may not always be telling the truth.  In this new climate of "guilty until proven innocent," especially when someone comes out with allegations against someone in power, whistleblowers have a big platform for power.  Whistleblowers are necessary to keep a truthful government; but, knowing that today's political climate favors headlines over truth, future whistleblowers need to be aware of how hard it will be to put truth above everything else.   

Links: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/watchdog-appointed-by-trump-says-whistleblowers-must-be-protected-from-attacks/2019/12/03/9e21f8ae-1614-11ea-bf81-ebe89f477d1e_story.html

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/whistleblower-democrats-deroy-murdock   

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Rise of the Computer as a Household Object

Image
  For class this past week, we were divided up into groups and each presented on a form of technology that has changed or helped progress communication.  I chose the Personal Computer.  As I researched all the history of the personal computer, I was reminded how far we've come in the advancement of technology over the past half a century.  People from my generation, myself included, take the fact that we have access to computers and the internet whenever we want it for granted, and doing this research presentation really reminded me of that.  Without going into a full history of the PC, it started out as a glorified calculator.  The idea of a machine   that could send messages, play games, or even just have a color screen was foreign to early PC developers.  It came in pieces that you had to assemble yourself, and when it was complete, it looked like a pile of thrown together parts when compared to todays computers.  But, in a day and age when computers normally took up an
Read more

The Radical Idea of a Court By The People, For The People

Image
  As we have talked about the founding of our nation, and especially our form of government, it has further astounded me that the Founding Fathers had enough foresight to form the government in the way they did.  Three separate branches, keeping each other in check, all getting their power to operate from the people, was an idea the world had never heard of before.  One of the aspects that I did not know much about was the supreme court.  The two videos we watched for class that are linked below really explained the courts in simple ways and had one main theme: the judges are Americans just like the rest of us, and they get their power from the people in the same way that the other two branches do.  When talking about the history of the supreme court, the fact that the courts receive their power from "public faith," as the video puts it, is possibly the most radical idea to come from the Founding Fathers.  A people who decides their own laws, and petitions the court to
Read more