The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: A Comparative Constitutional Analysis of Whistleblowing Speech, the Government's Managerial Domain, and the Imperatives of Democratic Self-Government
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since issuing its 1968 landmark decision in Pickering, which first recognized that the First Amendment protects government employees' speech about matters of public concern, the US. Supreme Court has proceeded to whittle away First Amendment protections for government employees. The Justices have done so by adopting a series of categorical exclusions to Pickering that all strongly favor the government as an employer and manager. These subsequent decisions have created a jurisprudential obstacle course that government employees must successfully run in order to invoke the Free Speech Clause at all. The current U.S. approach is plainly bad. However, it could be even worse—it could be ugly. In Australia, the High Court has given the government a green light to censor any and all government employee speech under viewpoint-based speech regulations. Thus, in today's Australia, it's perfectly fine for a public servant to praise the government but not to criticize it. By way of contrast, in Canada, no categorical exclusions exist on the scope of constitutionally protected government employee speech, and the government must always be prepared to justify disciplinary actions based on a government employee's speech activity. Canada's approach is good-and clearly better than either the U.S. or Australian doctrines. By taking context fully into account, Canada's government employee speech doctrine allows for courts to consider carefully how to reconcile the three competing interests at stake (namely, the government's interest as a manager of its workforce, government employees' autonomy interests as would-be speakers, and the collective interest We the People possess in access to government employee speech in general and whistleblowing speech in particular). Canada has built a better mousetrap; the federal courts should seriously consider reforming the Pickering/Connick/Garcetti framework to more closely resemble the Supreme Court of Canada's holistic approach.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.100 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".