Should the government pass laws which protect whistleblowers?

Yes, but only if the information was not given to foreign sources.

Yes, but only if the information was never passed over to foreign sources.

Whistleblowing must be lawful, it is no more than reporting corruption and/or fraud. Whistleblowers should not face prosecution to begin with.

Yes, but punish those don't use the proper channels and leak critical information to foreign entities. A proper whistleblower report should happen domestically and not threaten our national security. Otherwise, it is an act of treason.

No and increase punishment for whistleblowers.

If the organization is unethical then yes but if it's to help others

Depends, Case by Case basis.

Yes, but only until court. As a defendant you have a right to know your accusers.

Maybe, Depending on the Circumstances.

No and increase punishments for whistle blowers.

Yes, and ensure their physical protection as well.

Depends heavily on the crime and the effect it would have on the country and what information was gathered.

Depends on the severity of what the whistle blowers are covering, it is something major or important enough to become a huge problem later down the road, then yes.

So long as the person was not involved in the situation, or agrees to still live out their sentence, then yes. However, if they refuse, or expect their sentence to be completely discarded just for telling, then no.

"Security Bridge Whistleblower Framework"
"Yes, with a tiered protection system based on intent, process, and impact. Legitimate whistleblowers who follow proper channels and act in good faith should receive full protection, even if their concerns turn out to be unfounded - we need people willing to police the powerful. However, those who bypass security protocols, act maliciously, or leak for personal gain should face consequences proportional to the damage caused. Create secure internal reporting systems with independent oversight to distinguish between genuine public interest disclosures and malicious leaks. The goal is encouraging accountability while preventing weaponization of whistleblowing for spite or political purposes."

Yes, as long as the Whistleblower can prove that their life is in danger and the information they provide would assist with getting criminals off the streets

Yes, and all information/documents the government has should be automatically and fully declassified after 50 years

There should be an independent agency made of these whistleblowers who will be told to investigate if there need be investigation but only for investigation of evidence provided except when given power to handle an investigation.

No, because that could put the company or the people in the company in danger who didn't do anything wrong

I support vigilante justice but if it is important enough to break the law for it doesn’t matter and should be done anyway as an act of protest to incentivize change

Yes, The government should pass laws to protect Whistleblowers from getting hurt and/or getting the Whistleblowers killed.

This question is unclear. Legal whistleblowing can entail sharing information with an employee’s office’s inspector general. This should remain protected. Leaking to the press is another matter entirely

Yes, if release of info doesn't threaten national security, and in conjunction with creating an independent office where whistleblowers MUST send their information first, which is tasked with investigating all whistleblower reports.

I would say if the info was legally obtained

The National Security Threat is kind of important, but I can see Govt elected officials or Homeland Security Divisions of our govt using that as a catch all.

The key is yes that whistleblowers should be able to come forward/have protection, but it cannot be a free for all as all complainants/problems will continue the over litigious culture of our society-(Some Organizations & companies due stupid things, the key is to make sure it is not things that have the potential to hurt, poison, or kill citizens/workers)

If the information will serve a greater good and the affairs of an organization are exposed as immoral in any way that pertains to the claims of the whistleblower, then they should be protected. If the whistleblower's intentions aren't moral, then they should be punished.

Yes, but only if releasing the information was legally obtained and does not threaten our national security

Yes. and we need to create a non biased incorruptible agency that can A. protect the whistleblower and B. Prevent any info leaking that can threaten our national security, something like using the supreme court for this

It is important to be able to protect the rights of people who speak the truth and who help strike down the powerful.

Unless US lives were taken then Yes

Yes, all governmental organizations should be held accountable for their actions

No increase their punishments instead

Yes, provided the information is accurate.

Inforce the laws we have. Don't keep ignoring them.

The government should protect them if they are under any danger or harm. But if they were involved in a crime they should be on trial for that crime. No reducing of sentences.

Yes, and audit the entire government all the way down to the lowest levels

Yes. And audit the entire government all the way down to the lowest levels

Yes, but only if we know for a fact they are telling the truth.

yes, but if the information isn't to the hindrance of the us and the benefit of another nation.

Provide whistleblowers a mechanism to safely share what they know. Individual evaluations should be conducted for each instance.

I believe this an "at your own risk" kind of thing. They should be protected but if it's by the government there is risk of propaganda. I think there should also be an increase of independent news anchors in order to limit government control over what current events we see or don't see.

Yes. But it should also be designed to ensue their are safer ways to release info that do not harm active duty agents for example.

Yes but reduce their sentances if their crime is not to serious just so you can get the bigger crimes

Yes, if government and/or businesses cannot be transparent then those revealing the truth should be protected.

Yes, as long as the information does not significantly threaten national security assuming the definition of national security is not broad and open for significant interpretation

If the information is truth, then they should have protection, but if found false, company has control.

Yes, but only if the information is very harmful. If rats and moles were protected, what's stopping someone from blowing the whistle on lgbtq people or people who are making a chaotic-good choice? If it's something like terrorism, sex trafficking, unfair pay, discrimination, abuse, ect, I believe it's okay

yes, except on national security and SOME legality issues. Just because it is illegal does not make it inherently bad; this should be partially state controlled again, since it really depends.

Only if they are protecting the good of the people as well as helping keep the area safer for the community.

Yes but only if it was obtained legally and releasing the information does not threaten national security

Only if it is a large group of people that they had to report and have connections too bigger organization.

There are already laws to protect whistleblowers - but it is limited to federal programs. It should be expanded to other businesses

Yes, individuals should be encouraged to come forward with information that serves the public interest, which helps maintain accountability and integrity

The government needs to be dismantled, so everyone involved should be encouraged to blow any and all whistles.

Yes, a free press is a constitutional right and it's the right of the people to know what is true and the people need something to combat government lies and a malicious government.

Yes, but not from other criminal activity. But the whistleblower information could be considered during sentencing for other crimes if appropriate.

This is a free speech issue and as such the federal government is constitutionally prohibited from passing laws on the matter. State governments have more leeway when it comes to laws restricting free speech as long as those laws don't violate the state constitutions.

Well if a government agency or another agency or anybody's breaking the law and it requires a whistleblower to come out for everyone to find out why are we punishing the one who whistle blowed and not the one who's breaking the law in the first place

Yes, up to a point though in how much collusion they were involved in the crime and now they just want to save their own skin.

I think if the whistleblowers are responsible for the crimes they're telling authorities about they should also be punished, but if they are innocent yes, protect them at all cost.

I believe it is important to provide an avenue for those who wish to report wrongdoing a level of assurance that they are safe, but we also have to ensure that the information provided is not misleading, false, or subversive. It would be a detrimental to make it easy to say anything in such a situation, as it would provide an advantage to those who would be guilty of such actions. With the financial reach of many companies with the most influence, you could effectively snuff out any shot at having a genuine case due to flooding of dubious sources. Bureaucracy and all that..

giving incentives to whistleblowers can be beneficial however if they were a willing participant, they should not be able to be free.

Yes, the people deserve to know anything theyre government is doing at all times, whistleblowers are the way to do that

Only if their information is 110% accurate.

If the information was not only legally obtained but also the information must not be a false allegation.

Yes, but they still have their punishment but can be reduced.

Protect them how and from what exactly?

Not exactly sure how to respond because I do not know enough about this topic

Yes, and pardoned all whistleblowers currently in jail

Yes, but only if they haven't given the information to foreign sources.

Yes, depending on the manner of how the information is released

Yes but only if the information was legally obtained and the release of the information does not threaten national security.

Yes, but reduce the sentences of whistleblowers, not remove them

Yes, and the law should be written to punish weaponization of the federal government against whistleblowers rather than protection of the whistleblower (slight nuance)

It depends on the situation and what the say

Yes, but only if releasing the information was never passed over to foreign sources.

Depending the situation

No and increase their sentences.

Yes, although we can't trust the government to follow its own rules.

Yes, but only if they didn't provide the information to foreign sources.

No and increase punishments for whistleblowers.

Yes, if the government is truly corrupted from inner dealings and general kleptocracy of immensely powerful political figures, but most likely these will be glanced over because of the governments control of the media in general.