click on the attachment link below to hear this week's Peters Report.

As I write this, several concepts are revolving in the netherworld around my head, just out of mental reach:  free speech; blogging, government employees, First Amendment, whistleblowing, responsibility, retaliation.

Our 1st Amendment seemingly indemnifies free speech and blogging within its mere 45 words:  “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”   

But what practical protections do these rights offer, especially to whistleblowing government employees, or govvies?  Even if govvies have bragging rights to their blogging rights, what about responsibilities and retaliation?  

How do we ensure that allegations are balanced and accurate?  Without such qualities, public discourse will be of limited, if any, value.  We won’t advance a common cause if disgruntled or uninformed employees blog to vent frivolous frustrations and perceived professional slights.  Yet, official improprieties would thrive without whistleblowers bringing odious practices into the sunlight.

What ground rules should govvies follow?  Should they blog on company time and equipment?  Don’t existing government ethics rules permit this?  After all, agencies encourage reporting malfeasance on-the-clock via office phones, FAXes, and e-mails.  Should blogging be among the sanctioned and obligatory reporting alternatives for employees?  Should we have any limits at all on how to whistleblow?

Blog and blow to your hearts’ content, but my rule of thumb is use official channels on the government’s dime; blog on your own time.  What’s yours?

Fred Apelquist, contributing editor