Whistleblowers

For my junior theme this semester I will be focusing on the question of, why are whistleblowers not protected. Many people don't even know what a whistleblower is, so I will get into that a little. A "whistleblower" is defined by Merriam-Webster as, "one who reveals something covert or who informs against another". Now the interesting part of the whole dilemma of whistleblowers is that the idea of whether they should or should not be protected could be decided with the First Amendment. Many argue that whistleblowing should be allowed, and fully supported, because it is a constitutional right. Whistleblowing expert, Stephen Kohn, said in an interview that, "The First Amendment was enacted to prevent precisely what we're seen unfolding today. People in the government witness abuses and they have the right to blow the whistle on them." First amendment issues are something that I have found myself blogging about repeatedly this year, because they aren't as clear cut as they seem. The problem with federal whistleblowing is that it comes down to national security. Is it worth it to risk national security for federal employees to have their constitutional free speech rights? Or should they be limited? There have been many successful whistleblowing cases that have had no negative effects to our security, but there has also been many that have risked security. Defense Department secretary, George Morell, was quoted in an article saying, "We know terrorist organizations have been mining the leaked Afghan documents for information to use against us." The leaked documents he was referring to was part of the collection United States soldier,Bradley Manning, leaked to the whistleblowing website, WikiLeaks. Where should the line be drawn? I'm focusing on the reasons why the government restricts whistleblowing, so I won't be able to get into this side of the argument in my paper, so I'm curious what your opinions on the subject are.