http://www.saysuncle.com/2006/05/31/whistleblowers_not_protected/ Remember, I do this to entertain me... not you. Sun, 08 Nov 2009 22:09:19 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 http://www.saysuncle.com/2006/05/31/whistleblowers_not_protected/comment-page-1/#comment-85475 SayUncle » Nevermind Wed, 31 May 2006 12:36:53 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2006/05/31/whistleblowers_not_protected/#comment-85475 [...] Remember that time the press said the court ruled that whistleblowers weren’t protected? Well, that’s not really the case. [...] [...] Remember that time the press said the court ruled that whistleblowers weren’t protected? Well, that’s not really the case. [...]

]]> http://www.saysuncle.com/2006/05/31/whistleblowers_not_protected/comment-page-1/#comment-85470 damnum absque injuria » Sun Rises, Ass. Press Bungles Story, Man Doesn’t Bite Dog Wed, 31 May 2006 11:11:23 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2006/05/31/whistleblowers_not_protected/#comment-85470 [...] The Ass. Press completely mangled (h/t: Say Uncle) the holding in yesterday’s Supreme Court case, Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. ___ (2006), which held that work made by government workers in the capacity of their official job duties is not constitutionally protected speech. These paragraphs from pages 8-9 of the majority opinion explain its basic holding: Respondent Ceballos beleived the affidavit used to obtain a search warrant contained serious misrepresentations. He conveyed his opinion and recommendation in a memo to his supervisor. That Ceballos expressed his views inside his office, rather than publicly, is not dispositive. Employees in some cases may receive First Amendment protection for expressions made at work. See, e.g., Givhan v. Western Line Consol. School Dist. 439 U.S. 410, 414 (1976). May citizens do much of their talking inside their respective workplaces, and it would not serve the goal of treating public employees “like any member of the general public”Pickering, 391 U.S. at 573, to hold that all speech within the office is automatically exposed to restriction. [...] [...] The Ass. Press completely mangled (h/t: Say Uncle) the holding in yesterday’s Supreme Court case, Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. ___ (2006), which held that work made by government workers in the capacity of their official job duties is not constitutionally protected speech. These paragraphs from pages 8-9 of the majority opinion explain its basic holding: Respondent Ceballos beleived the affidavit used to obtain a search warrant contained serious misrepresentations. He conveyed his opinion and recommendation in a memo to his supervisor. That Ceballos expressed his views inside his office, rather than publicly, is not dispositive. Employees in some cases may receive First Amendment protection for expressions made at work. See, e.g., Givhan v. Western Line Consol. School Dist. 439 U.S. 410, 414 (1976). May citizens do much of their talking inside their respective workplaces, and it would not serve the goal of treating public employees “like any member of the general public”Pickering, 391 U.S. at 573, to hold that all speech within the office is automatically exposed to restriction. [...]

]]> http://www.saysuncle.com/2006/05/31/whistleblowers_not_protected/comment-page-1/#comment-85469 Xrlq Wed, 31 May 2006 10:41:23 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2006/05/31/whistleblowers_not_protected/#comment-85469 MSNBC (actually the Ass. Press) bungled the basic facts of <a href="http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-473.pdf" rel="nofollow"><i>Garcetti v. Ceballos</i></a> when they claim the Supremes "made it harder for government employees to file lawsuits claiming they were retaliated against for going public with allegations of official misconduct." In fact, they did no such thing. Both the dissent and the majority agreed that if Ceballos had gone public with the information in question, it <i>would</i> have been protected free speech. It wasn't because the memo in question was written on the job, as part of his official duties. MSNBC (actually the Ass. Press) bungled the basic facts of Garcetti v. Ceballos when they claim the Supremes “made it harder for government employees to file lawsuits claiming they were retaliated against for going public with allegations of official misconduct.” In fact, they did no such thing. Both the dissent and the majority agreed that if Ceballos had gone public with the information in question, it would have been protected free speech. It wasn’t because the memo in question was written on the job, as part of his official duties.

]]>