# The Supreme Court Blows It! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 31, 2006, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-blows-it/358920 "2006-05-31T20:04:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2006, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-blows-it/358920/21 "2006-06-01T01:04:56Z")
I can understand that whistle blowing is not necessarily protected by the First Amendment, due to security clearances or conditions of employment. However, there are also times when there is no other option. I predict that there will be a huge increase in the number and size of personal CYA files from here on out. I also predict that along with that, there will be a big increase in CYA emails (with attached receipts) being kept for long periods of time. The reason is simple. If I know something wrong is happening, I will send emails to my boss, his boss, with a cc copy to myself and so on, with receipts that give the date and time sent, whether the email was opened and read, whether it was deleted without being read, etc. I will also keep hardcopies in folders. I wonder what the ramifications will be, as I doubt I’m the only one who will do this. I also wonder what would happen if someone did something clearly illegal… Under whistleblower protection rules, I could turn him in. Without the protection, do I become a “conspirator” if I don’t rat him out? ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2006, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-blows-it/358920/22 "2006-06-04T22:59:43Z")
No one has seen fit to answer my question yet. If an person is now forbidden to blow the whistle on wrong doing, then what is to prevent that same person from being charged and convicted of conspiracy or cover-up, or as an accessory? ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2006, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-blows-it/358920/23 "2006-06-05T18:24:13Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > Hmmm. IMO, you’re half right and half wrong here, **Bricker**. Yes, a contract can “override the Constitution” in the sense you give. If you were to employ me as a legal secretary, my obligation of confidentiality to you and to your clients supersedes any First Amendment right I may have to discuss your clients’ affairs with whom I choose In this hypothetical, the contractual relationship between the legal secretary and the attorney does not “override” the legal secretary’s First Amendment rights - the First Amendment does not apply to the contractual relationship in the first place. The attorney is a private, not governmental, actor. > [@](#): > > But the other half of the package is where we disagree. It would be my strong contention that a governmental body or official does not have the power to impose conditions on an employee’s terms of employment which bar that employee from exposing malfeasance or nonfeasance in that agency or official’s public duties. A governmental body or official, as a matter of good public policy, _shouldn’t_ have the power to impose such conditions. But that’s as a matter of public policy, not consitutional rights. Sua Sua [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-blows-it/358920.md?page=1)