February 2, 2015
Darkness allows evil to flourish. Whistleblowers are the flashlights that show the spotlights where to shine. In a perfect world once the evil is spotlighted it is eradicated. In a perfect world whistleblowers are celebrated. We do not live in a perfect world. Hence the importance of protecting whistleblowers’ anonymity and the absolute necessity for free speech whether through main stream or social media.
The retribution and retaliation heaped upon anyone daring to blow the whistle on corruption never ceases: one is ostracized and ‘red circled’. Everyone praises your integrity and courage but no one wants to hire you. IMHO they fear exposure of known and unknown problems in their businesses. So while they’ve ‘got your back’ and give lip service to supporting you, they are jamming the knife deep.
There are those few intrepid, courageous patriots who understand our United States Constitution and believe in the necessity for absolute freedom of speech. Men and women who stand and oppose any infringement upon our inalienable rights and who march to the beat of the First Amendment.
One such is Douglas Handshoe. Another Bobby Truitt. I know these two men personally and can attest to their fortitude. There are others no doubt with whom I am not acquainted and whose motto also may well be: “I may not agree with what you say but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.”
In 1997, in the landmark cyberlaw case of Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, Judge Stewart R. Dalzell, , one of the three federal judges who in June 1996 declared parts of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) unconstitutional, in his opinion stated the following:
“The Internet is a far more speech-enhancing medium than print, the village green, or the mails. Because it would necessarily affect the Internet itself, the CDA would necessarily reduce the speech available for adults on the medium. This is a constitutionally intolerable result. Some of the dialogue on the Internet surely tests the limits of conventional discourse. Speech on the Internet can be unfiltered, unpolished, and unconventional, even emotionally charged, sexually explicit, and vulgar – in a word, “indecent” in many communities. But we should expect such speech to occur in a medium in which citizens from all walks of life have a voice. We should also protect the autonomy that such a medium confers to ordinary people as well as media magnates. […] My analysis does not deprive the Government of all means of protecting children from the dangers of Internet communication. The Government can continue to protect children from pornography on the Internet through vigorous enforcement of existing laws criminalizing obscenity and child pornography. […] As we learned at the hearing, there is also a compelling need for public educations about the benefits and dangers of this new medium, and the Government can fill that role as well. In my view, our action today should only mean that Government’s permissible supervision of Internet contents stops at the traditional line of unprotected speech. […] The absence of governmental regulation of Internet content has unquestionably produced a kind of chaos, but as one of the plaintiff’s experts put it with such resonance at the hearing: “What achieved success was the very chaos that the Internet is. The strength of the Internet is chaos.” Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so that strength of our liberty depends upon the chaos and cacophony of the unfettered speech the First Amendment protects.” Rowland, Diane (2005). Information Technology Law. Routledge-Cavendish. p. 463-465. ISBN 978-1859417560.
Judge Dalzell’s decision finding the anti-indecency provisions of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) violated the First Amendment was ultimately upheld by nine justices of the United States Supreme Court (although in a majority and concurring opinion) in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union. HELD: “§223(a)(1)(B), §223(a)(2), §223(d) of the CDA are unconstitutional and unenforceable, except for cases of obscenity or child pornography, because they abridge the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment and are substantially overbroad. The Internet is entitled to the full protection given to media like the print press; the special factors justifying government regulation of broadcast media do not apply.”
I presume there are by now numerous other cases with concurring and opposing views. As this is not a Law Review article I do not feel compelled to cite them.
Suffice it to say that having chosen to blow whistles and having been subjected to swift and brutal retaliation by the powers that be, I can in good conscience only recommend that anyone contemplating similar activity do so behind the protective screen of a blog or other social media operated by righteous 1st Amendment champions who will protect your identity to the death.
And in the event you believe you are being targeted because of your use of your First Amendment rights SUE IMMEDIATELY ! They will not stop. They will not leave you alone. They will use every dirty trick and scheme they know to destroy you. Not just silence you but destroy you. Evil fears light that much.
And even if you do not prevail on the facts of your original lawsuit, if the ‘idjits’ target you because you had the audacity to file a lawsuit: you have a new separate cause of action for retaliation. And on and on and on. Throw in allegations of SPOLIATION and the stakes soar to new $ heights. Since few governmental entities are in compliance with Record Management / Retention laws they remain sitting ducks. Ignorance, in their situation, is not bliss.
Finally, as a Christian washed in the blood of Jesus Christ, I would be remiss if I did not point out that abusive authority figures are flagrantly outside the will of God and should and must be courageously reported. Otherwise there will only be more victims. Including the abusers who will miss salvation and eternal joy with God: It is our Christian duty to report them. For so many reasons. Amen. Maranatha.