I always viewed the 'whistle blower' statutes to be for when a company is doing something illegal, or (if its possible they are separate) putting people in harm's way.
I never looked at it from a moral standpoint, like the Edwards affairs. I am not so sure that I think those kind of actions would be covered, but if they are, no skin off my back. On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 12:28 AM, Judah McAuley <ju...@wiredotter.com> wrote: > > Out of curiosity, where do people think that whistle blower actions > fit into the debate? > > I, personally, think that investigatory agencies (cops and whatnot) > definitely have to follow the letter of the law, acquire warrants, etc > in order to produce any useable evidence because those agencies wield > immense power and need substantial checks and balances on their use of > that power. > > But then we get to those areas that are a bit more grey. What > employees who take confidential information from their workplace > because of suspected wrong doing? And farther down that slippery > slope, what about, for instance, employees of John Edwards who sent > damning evidence of his extra-marital activities to the National > Enquirer? > > I would personally feel a moral obligation to publish evidence of the > wrong doing of a company I worked for, as in the case of scientists > who came forward to show the faked reports from tobacco companies. It > is certainly illegal to abscond with documents like that but what > about the greater good? One of the things I really dislike about the > Obama administration is their current zealous prosecution of federal > whistleblowers when the whistleblowing involves anything the admin has > deemed "national security". I understand their need to protect > national security, but all too often national security is just a > blatant attempt to hide things which would embarrass the government. > > I'm not sure what all the boundaries should be. But I do feel strongly > that taking sensitive information and distributing it isn't always > wrong. > > Judah > > On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 9:11 PM, Dana <dana.tier...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> We agree there. The stuff he found would not have been usable in >> court. Publishing the business letters might have been a legitimate >> free speech case, but that's not what he did. There's an invason of >> privacy there if you can use such a word for a politican who made her >> Down's syndrome son and teenaged daughter's sex life part of her >> campaign. >> >> >> >> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 9:55 PM, Scott Stroz <boyz...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Sure, as long as the evidence is acquired legally. >> >> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology-Michael-Dinowitz/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:317309 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
