the usual argument is that the public needs to know because he is running for office. I am not sure I agree unless it is someone like the wide-stance guy who is engaging in private in behavior he condemns in public. In that case, exposing the hypocrisy may be a public good. Not sure. It's definitely not in the same class as secret wiretaps though.
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 6:13 AM, Scott Stroz <boyz...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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:317310 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
