Harsh response to whistle-blowers took root under Obama – The Boston Globe

While retired federal judge Nancy Gertner made some excellent points in her op-ed regarding the admittedly invaluable contributions of whistle-blowers (Leaker or whistle-blower? Aug. 10), she seems to suggest inaccurately that the current administration is solely responsible for stifling whistle-blowers. Gertner overlooks that the ironic imbalance between whistle-blower protection in the private vs. public sector actually began in earnest during the Obama administration.

There is no question that in corporate America, whistle-blower protection has skyrocketed during the last 10 years, fueled by new laws such as Dodd-Frank, enhanced and stepped-up regulatory initiatives at the Department of Labor and the Securities and Exchange Commission, and court rulings expanding rights and remedies for whistle-blowers. Companies have responded, as evidenced by a recent survey by leading compliance solutions provider NAVEX Global that shows that average closure times for whistle-blower cases dropped nearly 10 percent from 2015 to 2016.

Advertisement

By contrast, those who blow the whistle in the public sector are branded as leakers (Edward Snowden) or, worse, thrown in jail (Chelsea Manning, Reality Winner). Indeed, during the Obama administration, the government criminally prosecuted nine people on charges related to whistle-blowing or leaks, compared with three such prosecutions in all the prior administrations combined.

While the current president may indeed be obsessed with leaks and intent on stifling would-be whistleblowers, the reality is that the seeds of such stifling took root before he took office.

Gregory Keating

Boston

The writer is an attorney and is co-author of Whistleblowing & Retaliation.

See more here:

Harsh response to whistle-blowers took root under Obama – The Boston Globe

Related Post

August 21, 2017   Posted in: Edward Snowden |

Fair Use Disclaimer

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Under the 'fair use' rule of copyright law, an author may make limited use of another author's work without asking permission. Fair use is based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism. The fair use privilege is perhaps the most significant limitation on a copyright owner's exclusive rights.

Fair use as described at 17 U.S.C. Section 107:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phono-records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

  • (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for or nonprofit educational purposes,
  • (2) the nature of the copyrighted work,
  • (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and
  • (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."