Civil Disobedience and Government Whistleblowing

Abstract

The past 20 years have seen a significant increase in individuals disclosing, without authority, state secrets to the public. These individuals have been labelled “government whistleblowers”. Government whistleblowers do not follow proper whistleblowing processes. Therefore, government whistleblowers are frequently subject to harsh legal penalties. A few government whistleblowers have argued that their disclosures are, in fact, acts of civil disobedience. Based on these claims, this essay examines four questions. Firstly, is there such a thing as a government whistleblower? Secondly, can government whistleblowing be morally justified? Thirdly, is government whistleblowing an act of civil disobedience? Fourthly, if government whistleblowing is an act of civil disobedience, what are the implications for the treatment of government whistleblowers? The essay finds that government whistleblowing is morally justifiable in certain circumstances and has independent value compared to other forms of whistleblowing. Then, it finds that government whistleblowing can be construed as Rawlsian civil disobedience if a revisionist approach is taken to Rawls’ definition in this context. Finally, the essay makes three suggestions for public and legal treatment of government whistleblowers. These are improved media representation, an opportunity for an open jury trial, and the motives of the government whistleblower are considered as mitigating factor during sentencing.