We ask a lot of whistleblowers. We ask them to stand up for what's right, and to sacrifice much along the way. They risk losing their jobs, alienating their friends, family, and coworkers, face lawsuits and threats to their personal safety.
Wednesday night, the (GAP) and presented a . The headliners: , who exposed corruption inside the New York Police Department in 1970 (and was unforgettably portrayed by Al Pacino in the eponymous film); and , who leaked the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times in 1971, forever changing public opinion about the Vietnam War.
They were joined by more recent whistleblowers, including Kit Foshee, a former meat inspector who exposed that his company was adding ammonia to its ground beef, and Coleen Rowley, who called out the FBI's mishandling of early information it had about Zacarias Mossaoui. Many gave first-hand accounts of exposing corruption, lies and cover-ups, and how being a whistleblower has changed their lives. You can watch the .
And if you're a whistleblower-in-the-making, take heed of what Ellsberg had to say. Ellsberg now regrets going to Congress first and waiting 20 months for hearings that never happened. He now says he would've gone straight to press. He told the audience:
[What] I regret not doing…is putting out [the Pentagon Papers] when they were in my safe before the war started in 1964…Sen. Morse…told me later when [the Pentagon Papers] did come out: "If you had given me what was in your safe in '64, the Tonkin Gulf resolution would never have gone to a vote…and if it had gone to a vote, it would have been voted down." So that's a heavy burden to bear. What I tell officials now for the last number of years is, "Don't do what I did. Don't wait 'til the bombs are falling, don't wait til the war has started."
The ACLU's own Mike German — an FBI whistleblower himself — spoke about the need for federal whistleblower protection at the event. The ACLU has joined with GAP and 350 other organizations in the Make It Safe Coalition, which is working to strengthen whistleblower protections. Join us by going to , where you can telling them to pass the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act.
Unless, of course, you like the taste of Mr. Clean in your burger.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter’s privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer’s subpoenas.