Written by Whistleblowers play a crucial role in uncovering misconduct or illegal activities within organizations or government bodies. However as details emerge there is often a reaction in favour of the whistleblower and against those who were covering up information. Here are some notable examples of whistleblower cases and the public reactions they generated:
Edward Snowden (2013): Case: Snowden, a former National Security Agency (NSA) contractor, leaked classified documents revealing extensive global surveillance programs. Public Reaction: The revelation sparked a global debate on privacy, government surveillance, and the balance between security and individual freedoms. Snowden was both praised as a hero and criticized as a traitor.
Chelsea Manning (2010): Case: Manning, a U.S. Army intelligence analyst, leaked classified documents to WikiLeaks, exposing military and diplomatic secrets. Public Reaction: Manning’s actions ignited discussions on government transparency and the consequences of war. Some viewed Manning as a whistleblower fighting for transparency, while others saw her as a traitor endangering national security.
Enron Whistleblower (2001): Case: Sherron Watkins, an Enron executive, raised concerns about accounting practices and financial misconduct within the company. Public Reaction: The Enron scandal led to public outrage, highlighting corporate fraud and the need for better financial regulations. Watkins was praised for her courage in coming forward.
Karen Silkwood (1974): Case: Silkwood, a nuclear worker, exposed safety violations and contamination at the Kerr-McGee plutonium plant. Public Reaction: Silkwood’s case raised awareness about the dangers of nuclear facilities and the importance of whistleblower protections. Her mysterious death under suspicious circumstances added intrigue to the story.
Daniel Ellsberg (1971): Case: Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers, a classified government report detailing the U.S. involvement in Vietnam, to the New York Times. Public Reaction: The leak contributed to public disillusionment with the government’s handling of the Vietnam War. Ellsberg faced charges, but they were eventually dropped due to evidence of government misconduct during the trial.
Dr. David Graham (2004): Case: Graham, a scientist at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), raised concerns about the safety of certain prescription drugs, including Vioxx. Public Reaction: The case fueled debates about pharmaceutical industry influence and the need for stronger drug safety regulations. Vioxx was eventually withdrawn from the market.
Julian Assange was arrested in London in April 2010. His arrest was sought by Sweden and the allegations were rape and molestation. But his real crime was exposing corrupt governments by allowing whistleblowers to upload documentary evidence to his website Wikileaks. Assange spent over 5 years in H.M. Belmarsh Prison before being released in June 2024. In September 2020, 160 former and current world leaders and diplomats signed a letter demanding the UK Government prevent his extradition to the U.S.; so he had significant worldwide support. After he was arrested Australian Prime Ministers Gillard, Rudd, Abbott, Turnbull, and Morrison were unable to secure his release; indeed at the time of Assange’s arrest, Julia Gillard described him as a terrorist.
Assange was forced to plead guilty to one charge of espionage to secure his freedom. Until he published Wikileaks he was virtually unknown except in hacking circles.
Richard Boyle: There is the also the curious case of Richard Boyle the Australian Tax Office whistleblower accused of 24 offences, including recording and disclosing protected information, which stem from his decision to collect information about unethical debt-recovery practices within the ATO. In January 2019, he was charged with 66 criminal offences, including telephone tapping and recording of conversations without the consent of all parties, and making a record of protected information, in some cases passing that information to a third party. The charges were later reduced to 24, reducing the time he would serve in jail if found guilty, but it could still be decades. Boyle was unknown prior to this and still maintains a low profile.
David McBride – McBride is accused of leaking classified Defence Department information to three senior journalists at the ABC and the then Fairfax Media newspapers. As a result actions of Australian SAS forces in Afghanistan were called into question. In 2018, Ben Roberts-Smith launched a multi-year legal battle in which the war veteran sued Nine Entertainment for defamation over articles that alleged he had committed war crimes, among other allegations. In June 2023, Justice Anthony Bensanko ruled that the media organisation had established substantial truth that Roberts-Smith had been involved in multiple murders while serving in the SAS. McBride was sentenced in May 2024 to 5 years 8 months in prison with a non-parole period of 2 years and 3 months.
Witness K – Bernard Collaery is another extraordinary case. Witness K was a senior intelligence officer concerned by the bugging of government offices in East Timor during negotiations over the Sunrise gas field. He eventually approached the intelligence watchdog, the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security (IGIS). He obtained permission to talk to an approved lawyer, Bernard Collaery, a barrister and one-time Attorney General for the ACT. Collaery helped the Timor-Leste government build a case against Australia at The Hague, alleging the bugging had rendered the treaty void. When Collaery flew to The Hague to give evidence his offices were raided and documents seized, and Witness K was also raided, had his passport seized, preventing him from flying to The Hague to give evidence. Eventually the case was dropped but Collaery says Witness K was put through “six years of seclusion, harassment and questioning”. These revelations were published across mainstream media, first through the Australian, then the ABC. The message to whistleblowers was clear. “Shooting the messenger” is alive and well in Australia.
However reactions from the public tend to follow one or more of the following patterns:
- Perceived Injustice: Some members of the public may view whistleblowers as individuals who are acting in the public interest by exposing corruption, misconduct, or illegal activities. Prosecuting them may be seen as an attempt to silence those who are trying to bring about positive change.
- Fear of Retaliation: Whistleblowers often face personal and professional risks for exposing information. When authorities prosecute whistleblowers, it can create a chilling effect, discouraging others from coming forward for fear of retaliation. The public may sympathize with whistleblowers who are perceived as brave individuals willing to take on powerful institutions.
- Lack of Trust in Authorities: If there is a general lack of trust in government or other institutions, the public may be skeptical of actions taken against whistleblowers. They may question the motives of those prosecuting whistleblowers and believe that the legal system is being used to protect powerful interests rather than uphold justice.
- Transparency and Accountability Concerns: Whistleblowers often play a crucial role in revealing information that holds powerful entities accountable. When authorities prosecute whistleblowers instead of addressing the issues they’ve exposed, it can be perceived as an attempt to cover up wrongdoing rather than address the root problems.
- Media Portrayal: The way whistleblowers and their cases are portrayed in the media can significantly influence public opinion. If the media frames whistleblowers as heroes fighting for the greater good, public sentiment may turn against those prosecuting them.
- Complexity of the Issues: Some cases involving whistleblowers can be complex, involving intricate legal and ethical considerations. Public reactions may be influenced by a misunderstanding of the complexities involved, leading to support for whistleblowers and opposition to their prosecution.
It’s important to recognize that public opinion is diverse, and not everyone will react the same way. While some may support whistleblowers, others may believe that legal action is necessary to maintain order and protect sensitive information. Public perception often depends on the specific circumstances of each case and the prevailing societal values at the time. Among the Australian cases mentioned above only Collaery had any real public profile. The problem is obvious. When Governments try to cover up their “indiscretions” the public response eventually overwhelms them. By prosecuting whistleblowers they initiate a process that not only reveals those indiscretions but also elevates the profile of the whistleblowers. So these are monsters of their own creation, and tangible evidence of government hypocrisy. The lesson is clear. If you make the rules you have to live by them.
You can’t expect to jail people for exposing the truth without a reaction. Truth will not be denied.
Feeds
Many whistleblowers face jail time despite legislation protecting them – surely the sign of a broken system!