The SCOTUS, in a divided ruling laid down limitations to the claims of whistleblowers in a decision that affects millions of government employees.

Justices Set Limits on Public Employees’ Speech Rights

The Supreme Court declared today, in a ruling affecting millions of government employees, that the Constitution does not always protect their free-speech rights for what they say on the job.

In a 5-to-4 decision, the court held that public employees’ free-speech rights are protected when they speak out as citizens on matters of public concern, but not when they speak out in the course of their official duties.

"We hold that when public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the court.

In writing the decision that reversed the Ninth Circuit today, Justice Kennedy noted that the Supreme Court has made it clear in previous rulings "that public employees do not surrender all their First Amendment rights by reason of their employment." On the other hand, he wrote, "When a citizen enters government service, the citizen by necessity must accept certain limitations on his or her freedom."

That last paragraph speaks to a core principle that will may have far reaching effects, because I am wondering if this might have a bearing on anonymous leaks to the press, such as Mary McCathy, formerly of the CIA.

Granted if the allegations are true, she is already guilty of violation of her confidentiality agreements.  What makes me ponder this is that some of her defenders are trying to defend her under the blanket of free speech protection.  At American Daily they recount this:

On the Fox News Sunday morning program, Left-leaning pundit Juan Williams looked like he was having an acid flashback as he insisted that Mary McCarthy’s release of classified information to reporter Dana Priest was all about McCarthy’s First Amendment rights to free speech and her efforts to get out the “truth” to the press.

If this ruling holds consistent, then her free speech is muted, as any one with government service understands already.  I mean they throw so many pieces of paper at you to sign, where you agree you have almost no rights, it is a no brainer.

Whistleblowers are a part of our life I suppose, particularly concerning the Government.  But they must be contained; not by fear but by a sense of responsibility.

In my opinion, the real danger of whistleblowers is that they inherently walk a dangerous line.  Their stories quite often cannot be confirmed without disclosing the secrecy of the informant.  It also in that sense allows an informant to make any outrageous claim knowing that he is protected by his anonymity from the responsibility of his actions.  The press jealously guards the informants secrecy with a zeal that is almost holy in such cases.

The problem is that the whole concept hinges on an element of trust that is hard to validate, yet no one on the side of the press seems to be concerned about the fallout of their policy.

"We won’t get the stories if we cannot guarantee confidentiality" they cry.  Well, let’s look at the most famous example of this, the Newsweek Koran Story.

Newseek in May of 2005 ran a story about alleged Koran Abuse against prisoners in Gitmo.  The article detailed specific abuses and cited an anonymous government official as their source.

The fallout was immediate and deadly as the story caused riots around the world which in some cases included fatalities.  People died for a lie, because it was discovered the abuses were nonexistent:

Newsweek Retracts Koran-Desecration Story

Newsweek on Monday retracted a story alleging interrogators at Guantanamo flushed the Koran down a toilet in front of detainees.

"Based on what we know now, we are retracting our original story that an internal military investigation had uncovered Koran abuse at Guantanamo Bay," editor Mark Whitaker (search) said in statement released Monday evening.

Earlier, Whitaker acknowledged the story was problematic in an apology to Newsweek’s readers, but said there was no reason to retract the story. "We’re not retracting anything. We don’t know what the ultimate facts are," he told The New York Times.

Newsweek did not say what caused the turnabout.

In the apology, Whitaker said that its lone source for a story accusing U.S. interrogators of flushing the Koran down the toilet to rattle a detainee later said he could not recall where information about the alleged incident came from.

"We believed our story was newsworthy because a U.S. official said government investigators turned up this evidence," Whitaker wrote. "But we regret that we got any part of our story wrong, and extend our sympathies to victims of the violence and to the U.S. soldiers caught in its midst."

The punch line was this:

"This was a report based on a single anonymous source that could not substantiate the allegation that was made," McClellan added. "The report has had serious consequences. People have lost their lives. The image of the United States abroad has been damaged. I just find it puzzling."

Essentially, in a rush to get the scoop, they took a story unsubstantiated and ran with it, much as Dan Rather did with the falsified Bush Memos in the presidential campaign.

I wont point to the widespread accusations of partisan bias, though they have some merit.  This is simply an eagerness to be the ones to have the headline, the scoop over their competitors that drives such sloppy journalism.

And on the other end of it are the leakers who cover their actions in justifications of free speech and free press.

And responsibility is lost in desire to make the story.