It is important to understand what whistleblower means. According to the dictonary - "A whistleblower is a person who alleges misconduct". Whistleblowers may report the misconduct to the lawyers, the media or state or federal agencies. In France everyone knows that this process can be extremely dangerous for the both parties. It is dangerous for the whistleblowers who can for example be sacked of their job or lose a trial for defamation and be financially condemned. One of the biggest judicial mistake highlights this problem and it was in 2003 when children and their parents charged people with sexual violence (Outreau trial). On one side we have to protect whistleblowers when they say the truth, but in the other side we can't always protect them as they can also lie. Do you believe whistleblowers are sufficiently protected under US law or is it still an act of tremendous courage to speak out?
[...] The Whistleblowers Protection under US Law First it can be useful to explain what mean whistleblower. In the dictionary we can find this signification: whistleblower is a person who alleges misconduct”. The American courts differentiate internal whistleblowers and external whistleblowers. Most whistleblowers are internal whistleblowers, who report misconduct to a fellow employee or superior within their company. External whistleblowers, however, report misconduct to outside persons or entities. In these cases, depending on the information's severity and nature, whistleblowers may report the misconduct the lawyers, the media or state or federal agencies. [...]
[...] But there are many problems with these laws (II). II] the difficulty of this kind of legislation First all these laws are only laws. It is very difficult for a judge to know who said the truth and what allegation is false or not. These cases can have big consequences and perhaps that a judge will prefer favoring the party financially the strongest. The only resolution to avoid this problem would be to harden law, or to envisage a presumption in favor of the whistleblowers. [...]
[...] This is a very old law, that's why we can say this matter is not a recent one. The U.S Supreme Court dealt a major blow to government whistleblowers when, in the case of Garcetti vs. Ceballos it ruled that government employees did not have protection from retaliation by their employers under the First Amendment of the Constitution. The free speech protections of the First Amendment have long been used to shield whistleblowers from retaliation by whistleblower attorneys. In response to the Supreme Court decision, the House of Representatives passed the Whistleblowers Protection Act of 2007. [...]
[...] It is to the whistleblower to show that his action is not an abuse. But if there is no presumption the whistleblower takes a risk because a trial is always uncertain, long and costly. That is why we can say that it is still an act of tremendous courage. Effectively, if the whistleblower has no interest in the denunciation, I think few people will have the courage to become a whistleblower. And the problem is that Justice Need whistleblower because we cannot place a policeman in every firm to protect every employee. [...]
Bibliographie, normes APA
Citez le doc consultéLecture en ligne
et sans publicité !Contenu vérifié
par notre comité de lecture
