Editing Whistleblowing (section)

==Legal protection for whistleblowers==
{{More citations needed section|date=December 2021}}
{{See also |Public interest defence}}
Legal protection for whistleblowers varies from country to country and may depend on the country of the original activity, where and how secrets were revealed, and how they eventually became published or publicized. Over a dozen countries have now adopted comprehensive whistleblower protection laws that create mechanisms for reporting wrongdoing and provide legal protections. Over 50 countries have adopted more limited protections as part of their anti-corruption, freedom of information, or employment laws.<ref>Banisar, "Whistleblowing: International Standards and Developments", in CORRUPTION AND TRANSPARENCY: DEBATING THE FRONTIERS BETWEEN STATE, MARKET AND SOCIETY, I. Sandoval, ed., World Bank-Institute for Social Research, UNAM, Washington, D.C., 2011 available online at [http://ssrn.com/abstract=1753180 ssrn.com]</ref>

''For purposes of the English Wikipedia, this section emphasizes the English-speaking world and covers other regimes only insofar as they represent exceptionally greater or lesser protections.''

===Australia===
{{main|Whistleblower protection in Australia}}
There are laws in a number of states.<ref>{{cite web |title=Whistleblowers Australia |url=http://www.whistleblowers.org.au/ |publisher=Whistleblowers.org.au }}</ref> The former Australian intelligence officer known as ''[[Witness K]]'', who provided evidence of Australia's [[Australia–East Timor spying scandal|controversial spying operation]] against the government of [[East Timor]] in 2004, face the possibility of jail if convicted.<ref>{{cite news |title=Timor-Leste activists 'shocked' by Australia's prosecution of spy Witness K and lawyer |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/22/timor-leste-activists-shocked-by-australias-prosecution-of-spy-witness-k-and-lawyer |work=The Guardian |date=21 July 2018}}</ref>

Whistleblowers Australia is an association for those who have exposed corruption or any form of malpractice, especially if they were then hindered or abused.<ref>{{cite web|author=Whistleblowers Australia |url=http://www.whistleblowers.org.au/ |title=Whistleblowers Australia |publisher=Whistleblowers.org.au |date=12 February 2012 |access-date=8 July 2012}}</ref>

===Canada===
The [[Public Sector Integrity Commissioner]] (PSIC)<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.psic-ispc.gc.ca/|title=Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada|first=Web Experience|last=Toolkit|website=www.psic-ispc.gc.ca}}</ref> provides a safe and confidential mechanism enabling public servants and the general public to disclose wrongdoings committed in the public sector. It also protects from reprisal public servants who have disclosed wrongdoing and those who have cooperated in investigations. The office's goal is to enhance public confidence in Canada's federal public institutions and in the integrity of public servants.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Government of Canada|first1=PSIC|title=Background, Objectives, Scope|url=http://www.psic.gc.ca/eng/content/background-objectives-scope|publisher=Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner|access-date=16 June 2014|archive-date=24 December 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141224105846/http://www.psic.gc.ca/eng/content/background-objectives-scope|url-status=dead}}</ref>

Mandated by the ''[[Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act]]'', PSIC is a permanent and independent agent of [[Parliament of Canada|Parliament]]. The act, which came into force in 2007, applies to most of the [[Structure of the Canadian federal government|federal public sector]], approximately 400,000 [[Public Service of Canada|public servants]].<ref>{{cite web|last1=Government of Canada|first1=PSIC|title=The Servants Disclosure Protection Act|url=http://www.psic.gc.ca/eng/aboutus/psdpa|publisher=Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner|access-date=16 June 2014|date=10 September 2013|archive-date=1 February 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150201071431/http://www.psic.gc.ca/eng/aboutus/psdpa|url-status=dead}}</ref> This includes government departments and agencies, parent Crown corporations, the [[Royal Canadian Mounted Police]] and other federal public sector bodies.

Not all disclosures lead to an investigation as the act sets out the jurisdiction of the commissioner and gives the option not to investigate under certain circumstances. On the other hand, if PSIC conducts an investigation and finds no wrongdoing was committed, the commissioner must report his findings to the discloser and to the organization's chief executive. Also, reports of founded wrongdoing are presented before the [[House of Commons of Canada|House of Commons]] and the [[Senate of Canada|Senate]] in accordance with the act.

The act also established the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal (PSDPT) to protect public servants by hearing reprisal complaints referred by the [[Public Sector Integrity Commissioner]]. The tribunal can grant remedies in favour of complainants and order disciplinary action against persons who take reprisals.

===European Union===
The [[European Parliament]] approved a "Whistleblower Protection Directive" containing broad [[free speech]] protections for whistleblowers in both the [[public sector|public]] and the [[private sector|private]] sectors, including for journalists, in all [[member states of the European Union]]. The Directive prohibits direct or indirect retaliation against employees, current and former, in the public sector and the private sector. The Directive's protections apply to employees, to volunteers, and to those who assist them, including to [[civil society]] organizations and to journalists who report on their evidence. In October 2021, the EU Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers, Equality and the Rule of Law emphasized that ministries, as legal entities in the public sector, are also explicitly required to establish internal reporting channels for their employees.<ref>{{cite web |title=ANA LOGO |date=7 November 2021 |url=https://analogo.de/2021/11/07/eu-kommission-auch-ministerien-muessen-whistleblowerschutzkanaele-einrichten/ }}</ref> It provides equal rights for whistleblowers in the [[national security]] sector who challenge the denial or removal of their [[security clearance]]s. Also, whistleblowers are protected from [[prosecutor|criminal prosecution]] and corporate lawsuits for damages resulting from their whistleblowing and are provided with psychological support for dealing with harassment stress.<ref name="commondreams.org">[[Government Accountability Project]], 21 November 2018, "[https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2018/11/21/european-parliament-panel-approves-whistleblower-protections-all-eu-countries European Parliament Panel Approves Whistleblower Protections for all EU Countries]"</ref>

[[Good government]] observers have hailed the EU directive as setting "the global standard for [[best practice]] rights protecting freedom of speech where it counts the most—challenging abuses of power that betray the [[public trust]]," according to the U.S.-based [[Government Accountability Project]]. They have noted, however, that ambiguities remain in the directive regarding application in some areas, such as "duty speech", that is, when employees report the same information in the course of a job assignment, for example, to a supervisor, instead of whistleblowing as formal [[dissent]]. In fact, duty speech is how the overwhelming majority of whistleblowing information gets communicated and where the free flow of information is needed for an organization's proper functioning. However, it is in response to such "duty speech" employee communication that the vast majority of retaliation against employees occurs. These observers have noted that the Directive must be understood as applying to protection against retaliation for such duty speech because without such an understanding the Directive will "miss the iceberg of what's needed".<ref name="commondreams.org"/>

==== France ====
In [[France]], several recent laws have established a protection regime for whistleblowers. Prior to 2016, there were several laws in force which created disparate legislation with sector-specific regimes. The 2016 [[Law on transparency, the fight against corruption and the modernization of economic life|law on transparency, the fight against corruption and modernization of economic life]] (known as the "Sapin 2 Law") provides for the first time a single legal definition of whistleblowers in France. It defines him or her as "''an individual who discloses or reports, in a disinterested manner and  in good faith, a crime or an offence, a serious and manifest breach of an  international commitment duly ratified or approved by France, a unilateral act  of an international organization adopted on the basis of such a commitment, of  the law or regulations, or a serious threat or harm to general interest, which  he or she has become personally aware of.''"<ref>{{Cite web |title=Sapin II Law: The New French Anticorruption System {{!}} La Loi Sapin II: Le nouveau dispositif français anti-corruption |url=https://www.morganlewis.com/pubs/2017/11/sapin-ii-law-the-new-french-anticorruption-system |access-date=2022-03-29 |website=www.morganlewis.com }}</ref> It excludes certain professional secrets such as national defense secrecy, medical secrecy or the secrecy of relations between a lawyer and his client.

In 2022, two laws were passed to transpose the [[Directive (European Union)|European Directive]] 2019/1937 of 23 October 2019 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law. One of them strengthens the role of the [[Défenseur des droits]] - the French [[ombudsman]] - tasked with advising and protecting whistleblowers. The second amends the Sapin 2 law to bring it into line with the directive and adds substantial guarantees not included in the directive among which:<ref>{{Cite web |publisher=Whistleblowing International Network |title=The new French whistleblowing law: renewed hope for European whistleblowers? |website=www.whistleblowingmonitor.eu/blog |url=https://www.whistleblowingmonitor.eu/blog |access-date=2022-03-29}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=LOI n° 2022-401 du 21 mars 2022 visant à améliorer la protection des lanceurs d'alerte |url=https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/jorf/id/JORFTEXT000045388745 |access-date=2022-03-29 |website=www.legifrance.gouv.fr}}</ref>

* The definition of whistleblowing in force under the "Sapin 2 Law" – which includes whistleblowing not based on work - has been maintained.
* The protection applies to any natural person who facilitates or assists whistleblowers – as required in the directive – but also to entities such as NGOs ([[Non-governmental organization]]s) or trade unions, which act as a facilitator. They are offered the same level of protection.
* Military personnel will now be afforded the same level of protection as other civil servants, so long as they do not disclose information that may harm national security.
* The law provides that whistleblowers may be granted financial assistance, when subjected to a suit, by making an application to a judge, who has the power to force the suing organization – the employer, for instance - to cover their legal fees and if their financial situation has deteriorated, their living expenses.
* The law provides that whistleblowers shall not incur criminal liability with respect to the acquisition of, or access to, the information that is reported or publicly disclosed. They cannot be sentenced for any offenses committed in order to gather proof or information as long as they obtained it in a lawful manner.
* The law strengthens existing sanctions against those who retaliate against whistleblowers: The criminal sanctions applicable to persons retaliating against whistleblowers can go up to three years of imprisonment and a fine of €45,000. The judges may impose €60,000 fines on companies taking a SLAPP action against a whistleblower.

The law allows any person to apply to the Défenseur des droits for an opinion on his or her status as a whistleblower. A response should be given within six months after receiving the application. The organic law provides that the Défenseur des droits will publish a report every two years on the overall functioning of whistleblower protection addressed to the [[President of France|French President of the Republic]], the President of the [[National Assembly (France)|National Assembly]], and the President of the [[Senate (France)|Senate]].<ref>{{Cite web |title=LOI organique n° 2022-400 du 21 mars 2022 visant à renforcer le rôle du Défenseur des droits en matière de signalement d'alerte |url=https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/jorf/id/JORFARTI000045388744 |access-date=2022-03-29 |website=www.legifrance.gouv.fr}}</ref>

===Jamaica===
In [[Jamaica]], the Protected Disclosures Act, 2011<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.japarliament.gov.jm/attachments/341_The+Protected+Disclosures+Act,+2011.pdf|title=Acts List|first=Houses of|last=Parliament|website=www.japarliament.gov.jm}}</ref> received assent in March 2011. It creates a comprehensive system for the protection of whistleblowers in the public and private sectors. It is based on the [[Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998]].

===India===
{{main|Whistleblower protection in India}}
The [[Government of India]] has been considering adopting a whistleblower protection law for several years. In 2003, the Law Commission of India recommended the adoption of the Public Interest Disclosure (Protection of Informers) Act, of 2002.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/reports/179rptp2.pdf |title=Publin Interest Disclosure Bill |access-date=13 June 2013}}</ref> In August 2010, the Public Interest Disclosure and Protection of Persons Making the Disclosures Bill, 2010 was introduced into the [[Lok Sabha]], the lower house of the [[Parliament of India]].<ref>The Public Interest Disclosure and Protection of Persons Making the Disclosures Bill, 2010 [http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/postoftheday/PIDPPMDBill-2010.pdf] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161023210503/http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/postoftheday/PIDPPMDBill-2010.pdf|date=23 October 2016}}</ref> The Bill was approved by the cabinet in June 2011. The Public Interest Disclosure and Protection of Persons Making the Disclosures Bill, 2010 was renamed the Whistleblowers' Protection Bill, 2011 by the Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.prsindia.org/uploads/media/Public%20Disclosure/Legislative%20Brief%20-%20Public%20Interest%20Disclosure%20Bil.pdf |title=Legislative Brief |access-date=13 June 2013 |archive-date=24 October 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181024235406/http://www.prsindia.org/uploads/media/Public |url-status=dead }}</ref> The Whistleblowers' Protection Bill, 2011 was passed by the Lok Sabha on 28 December 2011.<ref>{{cite news|author=PTI |url=http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2752946.ece |title=Whistle-blowers Bill passed |newspaper=The Hindu |date=28 December 2011 |access-date=8 July 2012 |location=Chennai, India}}</ref> and by the Rajyasabha on 21 February 2014. The Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2011 received Presidential assent on 9 May 2014 and the same was subsequently published in the official gazette of the Government of India on 9 May 2014 by the Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India.

===Iran===
In 2023, the [[Government of Iran|Iranian government]] made public whistleblowing punishable by law if a whistleblower reveals corruption to authorities that can't be proved.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.irna.ir/amp/85198309/ | title=ایرادات شورای نگهبان به طرح حمایت از گزارشگران فساد رفع شد - ایرنا }}</ref>

===Ireland===
The [[government of Ireland]] committed to adopting a comprehensive whistleblower protection law in January 2012.<ref>{{cite news |title=Whistleblower Bill to cover public and private sectors |newspaper=Irish Times |date=30 January 2011 |url=http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0130/1224310944604.html |access-date=2 February 2012 |archive-date=31 January 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120131012342/https://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0130/1224310944604.html |url-status=dead }}</ref> The Protected Disclosures Act (PDA) was passed in 2014. The law covers workers in the public and private sectors, and also includes contractors, trainees, agency staff, former employees and job seekers. A range of different types of misconduct may be reported under the law, which provides protections for workers from a range of employment actions as well as whistleblowers' identity.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.icsa.org.uk/ireland/knowledge-and-guidance/governance-and-directors/protected-disclosures-act-2014-a-new-era-for-whistleblowing-in-ireland|title=Protected Disclosures Act 2014 – a new era for whistleblowing in Ireland|website=www.icsa.org.uk|access-date=5 January 2019|archive-date=6 January 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190106010230/https://www.icsa.org.uk/ireland/knowledge-and-guidance/governance-and-directors/protected-disclosures-act-2014-a-new-era-for-whistleblowing-in-ireland|url-status=dead}}</ref>

===Netherlands===
[[Netherlands|The Netherlands]] has measures in place to mitigate the risks of whistleblowing: The House for Whistleblowers (Huis voor klokkenluiders) offers advice and support to whistleblowers, and the Parliament passed a proposal in 2016 to establish this house for whistleblowers, to protect them from the severe negative consequences that they might endure (Kamerstuk, 2013).<ref>{{Cite web|last=Koninkrijksrelaties|first=Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en|date=2019-10-09|title=English - Huisvoorklokkenluiders|url=https://www.huisvoorklokkenluiders.nl/english|access-date=2021-09-03|website=www.huisvoorklokkenluiders.nl|language=nl-NL}}</ref> Dutch media organizations also provide whistleblower support; on 9{{nbsp}}September 2013,<ref>{{cite web|title=Vanaf vandaag: anoniem lekken naar media via doorgeefluik Publeaks|url=http://www.volkskrant.nl/vk/nl/2694/Tech-Media/article/detail/3506349/2013/09/09/Vanaf-vandaag-anoniem-lekken-naar-media-via-doorgeefluik-Publeaks.dhtml|publisher=volkskrant.nl|access-date=22 February 2014}}</ref> a number of major Dutch media outlets supported the launch of Publeaks,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.publeaks.nl|title=Publeaks – Veilig en anoniem informatie delen met de pers|website=www.publeaks.nl}}</ref> which provides a secure website for people to leak documents to the media. Publeaks is designed to protect whistleblowers. It operates on the [[GlobaLeaks]] software developed by the [[Hermes Center for Transparency and Digital Human Rights]],<ref>{{cite web|url=http://logioshermes.org/|title=HERMES Center for Transparency and Digital Human Rights|website=logioshermes.org|access-date=24 February 2014|archive-date=1 September 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160901141338/http://www.logioshermes.org/|url-status=usurped}}</ref> which supports whistleblower-oriented technologies internationally.<ref>{{cite web|title=Handling ethical problems in counterterrorism An inventory of methods to support ethical decisionmaking|url=https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR200/RR251/RAND_RR251.pdf|publisher=RAND Corporation|access-date=24 February 2014}}</ref>

=== New Zealand ===
In New Zealand, the Protected Disclosures (Protection of Whistleblowers) Act 2022<ref>{{Cite web |title=Protected Disclosures (Protection of Whistleblowers) Act 2022 No 20 (as at 01 July 2024), Public Act – New Zealand Legislation |url=https://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2022/0020/latest/whole.html |access-date=2024-09-28 |website=legislation.govt.nz}}</ref> provides protection to whistleblowers under some circumstances. A wide range of workers are covered, including employees, volunteers and contractors, and the legislation covers both public and private sector organisations.<ref name="ombudsman.parliament.nz">{{Cite web |date=2022-07-01 |title=Protections for whistleblowing {{!}} Ombudsman New Zealand |url=https://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/what-we-can-help/serious-wrongdoing-work-whistle-blowing/protections-whistle-blowing |access-date=2024-09-28 |website=www.ombudsman.parliament.nz }}</ref> Protection is limited to serious misconduct, and disclosure by workers it does not cover others who learn of serious misconduct. To be protected by the Act the disclosure must be to an Appropriate Authority<ref>{{Cite web |date=2022-07-01 |title=Make a protected disclosure {{!}} Ombudsman New Zealand |url=https://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/make-protected-disclosure |access-date=2024-09-28 |website=www.ombudsman.parliament.nz }}</ref> this means that disclosure to the media is not protected. Whistleblowers covered by the Act are protected from civil, criminal and disciplinary procedures as well as retaliation, in most cases their identities must be kept confidential.<ref name="ombudsman.parliament.nz"/> The Act also requires that [[Public service]] agencies must have internal processes to support whistleblowing.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Protected Disclosures (Protection of Whistleblowers) Act 2022 |url=https://www.publicservice.govt.nz/publications/protected-disclosures-act-2022 |access-date=2024-09-28 |website=Te Kawa Mataaho Public Service Commission }}</ref>

This Act replaced and extended the [[Protected Disclosures Act 2000]]. The genesis of the legislation was advocacy by [[John Robertson (ombudsman)|Sir John Robertson]] in the 1980s, at the time [[Office of the Ombudsman (New Zealand)|New Zealand's Chief Ombudsman]].<ref>{{Cite web |title=Te Ara: Ombudsmen – whistleblowing |url=https://teara.govt.nz/en/ombudsmen-and-officers-of-parliament/page-5 }}</ref> The subsequent high-profile case of whistleblower Neil Pugmire who raised concerns about the release of dangerous mental health patients led to the 2000 act.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2024-09-28 |title=Law would not cover man who inspired it |url=https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/law-would-not-cover-man-who-inspired-it/KGXONNNS2GQU4PLBGXXEOYZ6BU/ |access-date=2024-09-28 |website=NZ Herald }}</ref>

===Switzerland===
The Swiss [[Council of States (Switzerland)|Council of States]] agreed on a draft amendment of the [[Swiss Code of Obligations]] in September 2014. The draft introduces articles 321a<sup>bis</sup> to 321a<sup>septies</sup>, 328(3), 336(2)(d).<ref>{{cite web|title=Schutz bei Meldung von Unregelmässigkeiten am Arbeitsplatz|url=http://www.admin.ch/opc/de/federal-gazette/2013/9589.pdf|access-date=22 October 2014}}</ref> An amendment of article 362(1) adds articles 321a<sup>bis</sup> to 321a<sup>septies</sup> to the list of provisions that may not be overruled by labour and bargaining agreements.<br />
Article 321a<sup>ter</sup> introduces an obligation on employees to report irregularities to their employer before reporting to an authority. An employee will, however, not breach his duty of good faith if he reports an irregularity to an authority and
* a period set by the employer and no longer than 60 days has lapsed since the employee has reported the incident to his employer, and
* the employer has not addressed the irregularity or it is obvious that the employer has insufficiently addressed the irregularity.
Article 321a<sup>quarter</sup> provides that an employee may exceptionally directly report to an authority. Exceptions apply in cases
* where the employee is in a position to objectively demonstrate that a report to his employer will prove ineffective,
* where the employee has to anticipate dismissal,
* where the employee must assume that the competent authority will be hindered in investigating the irregularity, or
* where there is a direct and serious hazard to life, to health, to safety, or to the environment.
The draft does not improve on protection against dismissal for employees who report irregularities to their employer.<ref>{{cite web|title=Botschaft über die Teilrevision des Obligationenrechts |url=http://www.admin.ch/opc/de/federal-gazette/2013/9513.pdf|access-date=23 October 2014}}</ref> The amendment does not provide for employees to [[Anonymity|anonymously]] file their observations of irregularities.

===United Kingdom===
{{Main|Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998}}
Whistleblowing in the United Kingdom is protected by the [[Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998]] (PIDA). Amongst other things, under the Act protected disclosures are permitted even if a [[non-disclosure agreement]] has been signed between the employer and the former or current employee; a consultation on further restricting confidentiality clauses was held in 2019.<ref name=consult>{{Cite web|url=https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/783011/confidentiality-clauses-consultation.pdf|title=Consultation on Confidentiality Clauses|website=UK [[Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy]]|date=March 2019}}</ref>

The [[Freedom to Speak Up Review]] sets out 20 principles to bring about improvements to help whistleblowers in the [[National Health Service|NHS]], including:
* Culture of raising concerns&nbsp;– to make raising issues a part of the normal routine business of a well-led NHS organization.
* Culture free from bullying&nbsp;– freedom of staff to speak out relies on staff being able to work in a culture which is free from bullying.
* Training&nbsp;– every member of staff should receive training in their trust's approach to raising concerns and in receiving and acting on them.
* Support&nbsp;– all NHS trusts should ensure there is a dedicated person to whom concerns can be easily reported and without formality, a "speak up guardian".
* Support to find alternative employment in the NHS&nbsp;– where a worker who has raised a concern cannot, as a result, continue their role, the NHS should help them seek an alternative job.

[[Monitor (NHS)|Monitor]] produced a whistleblowing policy in November 2015 that all NHS organizations in England are obliged to follow. It explicitly says that anyone bullying or acting against a whistleblower could be potentially liable to disciplinary action.<ref>{{cite news|title=Monitor to reveal national whistleblowing policy|url=http://www.hsj.co.uk/topics/workforce/exclusive-monitor-to-reveal-national-whistleblowing-policy/7000188.article|access-date=18 December 2015|publisher=Health Service Journal|date=16 November 2015}}</ref> An observational and interviewed-based study of more than 80 Guardians found that a lack of resources, especially time, reduced their ability to respond to concerns, and to analyse and learn from data. Guardians struggled to develop their role, and create a more positive culture in which staff felt free to voice concerns. Guardians found their role stressful and received little psychological support and as a result many did not intend to stay in their role for long.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Jones |first1=Aled |last2=Maben |first2=Jill |last3=Adams |first3=Mary |last4=Mannion |first4=Russell |last5=Banks |first5=Carys |last6=Blake |first6=Joanne |last7=Job |first7=Kathleen |last8=Kelly |first8=Daniel |date=2022-08-15 |title=Implementation of 'Freedom to Speak Up Guardians' in NHS acute and mental health trusts in England: the FTSUG mixed-methods study |url=https://www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/hsdr/GUWS9067/ |journal=Health and Social Care Delivery Research |volume=10 |issue=23 |pages=1–124 |doi=10.3310/GUWS9067|pmid=35995060 |s2cid=251606554 |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |date=31 August 2023 |title=Freedom to Speak Up Guardians need more support, study finds |url=https://evidence.nihr.ac.uk/alert/freedom-to-speak-up-guardians-need-more-support-study-finds/ |journal=NIHR Evidence|doi=10.3310/nihrevidence_59584 |s2cid=261453359 }}</ref>

===United States===

{{main|Whistleblower protection in the United States}}
Whistleblowing tradition in what would soon become the United States had a start in 1773 with [[Benjamin Franklin]] leaking a few letters in the [[Hutchinson letters affair|Hutchinson affair]]. The release of the communications from royal governor [[Thomas Hutchinson (governor)|Thomas Hutchinson]] to [[Thomas Whately]] led to a firing, a duel and arguably, both through the many general impacts of the leak and its role in convincing Franklin to join the radicals' cause, the taking of another important final step toward the [[American Revolution]].
[[File:Captain Silas S. Soule.jpg|thumb|left|[[Silas Soule]], a 19th century whistleblower of the [[Sand Creek massacre]] of Native Americans in 1864. Soule was murdered in what some believed was retaliation.]]
The first act of the [[Continental Congress]] in favor of what later came to be called whistleblowing came in the [[Esek Hopkins#Revolutionary War service|1777-8 case]] of [[Samuel Shaw (naval officer)|Samuel Shaw]] and [[Richard Marven]]. The two seamen accused Commander in Chief of the [[Continental Navy]] [[Esek Hopkins]] of torturing British prisoners of war. The Congress dismissed Hopkins and then agreed to cover the defense cost of the pair after Hopkins filed a libel suit against them under which they were imprisoned. Shaw and Marven were subsequently cleared in a jury trial.

To be considered a whistleblower in the United States, most federal whistleblower statutes require that [[federal employee]]s have reason to believe their employer violated some law, rule, or regulation; testify in or commence a legal proceeding on the legally protected matter; or refuse to violate the law.

In cases where whistleblowing on a specified topic is protected by statute, U.S. courts have generally held that such whistleblowers are protected from retaliation.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.oalj.dol.gov/PUBLIC/WHISTLEBLOWER/REFERENCES/REFERENCE_WORKS/EDIG12.HTM |title=DOL.gov |publisher=Oalj.dol.gov |access-date=8 July 2012}}</ref> However, a closely divided [[U.S. Supreme Court]] decision, ''[[Garcetti v. Ceballos]]'' (2006) held that the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|First Amendment]] [[free speech]] guarantees for government employees do not protect disclosures made within the scope of the employees' duties.

In the United States, legal protections vary according to the subject matter of the whistleblowing and sometimes the state where the case arises.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.peer.org/state/index.php |title=Peer.org |publisher=Peer.org |access-date=8 July 2012}}</ref> In passing the 2002 [[Sarbanes–Oxley Act]], the Senate Judiciary Committee found that whistleblower protections were dependent on the "patchwork and vagaries" of varying state statutes.<ref>Congressional Record p. S7412; S. Rep. No. 107–146, 107th Cong., 2d Session 19 (2002).</ref> Still, a wide variety of federal and state laws protect employees who call attention to violations, help with enforcement proceedings, or refuse to obey unlawful directions. While this patchwork approach has often been criticized, it is also responsible for the United States having more dedicated whistleblowing laws than any other country.<ref>{{Cite book|title = Transatlantic Whistleblowing.|last = Gerdemann|first = Simon|publisher = Mohr Siebeck|year = 2018|isbn = 978-3-16-155917-4}}</ref>

The first US law adopted specifically to protect whistleblowers was the 1863 United States [[False Claims Act]] (revised in 1986), which tried to combat fraud by suppliers of the United States government during the [[American Civil War]]. The act encourages whistleblowers by promising them a percentage of the money recovered by the government and by protecting them from employment retaliation.<ref name="answers1">{{cite web|url=http://www.answers.com/topic/whistleblower |title=Answers.com |publisher=Answers.com |access-date=8 July 2012}}</ref>

Another US law specifically protecting whistleblowers is the [[Lloyd–La Follette Act]] of 1912. It guaranteed the right of federal employees to furnish information to the [[United States Congress]]. The first US [[environmental law]] to include employee protection was the [[Clean Water Act]] of 1972. Similar protections are included in subsequent federal environmental laws, including the [[Safe Drinking Water Act]] (1974), [[Resource Conservation and Recovery Act]] (1976), [[Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976]], [[Energy Reorganization Act of 1974]] (through 1978 amendment to protect nuclear whistleblowers), [[Superfund|Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, or the Superfund Law)]] (1980), and [[Clean Air Act (United States)|Clean Air Act]] (1990). Similar employee protections enforced through OSHA are included in the [[Surface Transportation Assistance Act]] (1982) to protect truck drivers, the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act (PSIA) of 2002, the [[Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century]] (AIR 21), and the [[Sarbanes–Oxley Act]], enacted on July 30, 2002 (for corporate fraud whistleblowers). More recent laws with some whistleblower protection include the [[Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act]] (ACA), [[Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act]] (CPSIA), Seamans Protection Act as amended by the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 (SPA), [[Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act|Consumer Financial Protection Act]] (CFPA), [[FDA Food Safety Modernization Act]] (FSMA), [[Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act]] (MAP-21), and [[Taxpayer First Act]] (TFA).

Investigation of retaliation against whistleblowers under 23 federal statutes falls under the jurisdiction of the Directorate of Whistleblower Protection Program (DWPP)<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.whistleblowers.gov |title=Whistleblowers.gov |publisher=Whistleblowers.gov |access-date=8 July 2012}}</ref> of the [[United States Department of Labor]]'s<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.dol.gov |title=DOL.gov |publisher=DOL.gov |access-date=8 July 2012}}</ref> [[Occupational Safety and Health Administration]] (OSHA).<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.osha.gov |title=Osha.gov |publisher=Osha.gov |date=28 April 2012 |access-date=8 July 2012}}</ref> New whistleblower statutes enacted by Congress, which are to be enforced by the Secretary of Labor, are generally delegated by a Secretary's Order<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=FEDERAL_REGISTER&p_id=21749 |title=Osha.gov |publisher=Osha.gov |access-date=8 July 2012}}</ref> to the DWPP.

The patchwork of laws means that victims of retaliation need to be aware of the laws at issue to determine the deadlines and means for making proper complaints. Some deadlines are as short as 10 days (Arizona State Employees have 10 days to file a "Prohibited Personnel Practice" Complaint before the Arizona State Personnel Board), while others are up to 300 days.

Those who report a false claim against the federal government, and suffer adverse employment actions as a result, may have up to six years (depending on state law) to file a civil suit for remedies under the US [[False Claims Act]] (FCA).<ref>{{usc|31|3730}} (h)</ref> Under a ''[[qui tam]]'' provision, the "original source" for the report may be entitled to a percentage of what the government recovers from the offenders. However, the "original source" must also be the first to file a federal civil complaint for recovery of the federal funds fraudulently obtained, and must avoid publicizing the claim of fraud until the [[United States Department of Justice|US Justice Department]] decides whether to prosecute the claim itself. Such ''qui tam'' lawsuits must be filed under seal, using special procedures to keep the claim from becoming public until the federal government makes its decision on direct prosecution. Whistleblowers acting under the FCA are the primary enforcement tool used by the U.S. Department of Justice to target fraud, including overbilling to government programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Tricare.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Berry |first=Melissa |date=February 23, 2022 |title=US False Claims Act enforcements exceed $5.6 billion in 2021, mostly on health-care related claims |url=https://www.thomsonreuters.com/en-us/posts/investigation-fraud-and-risk/false-claims-enforcement/ |work=Thomson Reuters}}</ref>

[[File:Edward Snowden-2.jpg|thumb|upright=0.8|American whistleblower [[Edward Snowden]]]]

The [[Espionage Act of 1917]] has been used to prosecute whistleblowers in the United States including [[Edward Snowden]] and [[Chelsea Manning]]. In 2013, Manning was convicted of violating the Espionage Act and sentenced to 35 years in prison for leaking sensitive military documents to [[WikiLeaks]].<ref>Madar, Chase. "The Trials of Bradley Manning". Nation. 19 August 2013, Vol. 297 Issue 7/8, p12-17. 5p. Available online at: {{Cite news |url=https://www.thenation.com/article/trials-bradley-manning/ |title=The Trials of Bradley Manning |last=Madar |first=Chase |date=31 July 2013 |access-date=12 January 2020 |work=The Nation |archive-date=13 January 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200113001432/https://www.thenation.com/article/trials-bradley-manning/ |url-status=dead }}</ref> The same year, Snowden was charged with violating the Espionage Act for releasing confidential documents belonging to the [[National Security Agency|NSA]].<ref>Bamford, James. "Watch Thy Neighbor". Foreign Policy. Mar/Apr2016, Issue 217, p76-79. 3p. Available online at: {{Cite news |url=https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/03/11/watch-thy-neighbor-nsa-security-spying-surveillance/ |title=Watch Thy Neighbor |last=Bamford |first=James |access-date=12 January 2020 |date=11 March 2016|work=Foreign Policy}}</ref>

Section 922 of the [[Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act]] (Dodd-Frank) in the United States incentivizes and protects whistleblowers.<ref>"Dodd-Frank Section 922" (PDF). sec.gov.</ref> By Dodd-Frank, the [[U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission]] (SEC) financially rewards whistleblowers for providing original information about violations of federal securities laws that results in sanctions of at least $1M.<ref name="Dodd">"Dodd-Frank Act Rulemaking: Whistleblower Program". www.sec.gov. Retrieved 26 October 2016.</ref><ref>Barthle II, Patrick A. "Whistling Rogues: A Comparative Analysis of the Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Bounty Program". Washington & Lee Law Review. Spring2012, Vol. 69 Issue 2, p1201-1257. 57p.</ref> Additionally, Dodd-Frank offers job security to whistleblowers by illegalizing termination or discrimination due to whistleblowing.<ref name="Dodd" /><ref>{{cite journal|url=http://lawspace.stmarytx.edu/item/Agarwal_Step11_McKeown_Final_v2.pdf|title=Anti-Retaliation Protection for Internal Whistleblowers under Dodd-Frank Following the Fifth Circuit's Decision in Asadi|first=Tapas|last=Agarwal|journal=St. Mary's Law Journal|date=2015|volume=46|issue=3|pages=421–431|access-date=13 January 2020|archive-date=13 January 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200113001439/http://lawspace.stmarytx.edu/item/Agarwal_Step11_McKeown_Final_v2.pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |jstor = 24770775|title = Protecting Whistleblower Protections in the Dodd–Frank Act|journal = Michigan Law Review|volume = 113|issue = 1|pages = 121–149|last1 = Leifer|first1 = Samuel C.|year = 2014|url=https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol113/iss1/3}}</ref> The whistleblower provision has proven successful; after the enactment of Dodd-Frank, the SEC charged KBR (company) and BlueLinx Holdings Inc. (company) with violating the whistleblower protection Rule 21F-17 by having employees sign confidentiality agreements that threatened repercussions for discussing internal matters with outside parties.<ref>[https://www.sec.gov/news/pressrelease/2015-54.html "SEC: Companies Cannot Stifle Whistleblowers in Confidentiality Agreements"]. www.sec.gov. Retrieved 27 October 2016.</ref><ref>Hastings, Kathryn. "Keeping Whistleblowers Quiet: Addressing Employer Agreements To Discourage Whistleblowing". Tulane Law Review. Dec2015, Vol. 90 Issue 2, p495-527. [https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/tulr90&div=18&id=&page= HOL]</ref> Former President [[Donald Trump]] announced plans to dismantle Dodd-Frank in 2016.<ref name="Geewax">{{cite news |last1=Geewax |first1=Marilyn |title=Trump Team Promises To 'Dismantle' Dodd-Frank Bank Regulations |url=https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/11/10/501610842/trump-team-promises-to-dismantle-dodd-frank-bank-regulations |access-date=13 June 2023 |work=NPR |date=November 10, 2016}}</ref> He created the Office of Accountability and Whistleblower Protection as a part of the [[Department of Veterans Affairs]], which reportedly instead punished whistleblowers.<ref name="Arnsdorf">{{cite news |last1=Arnsdorf |first1=Isaac |title=Trump Appointees Used "Whistleblower Protection" Law to Target Whistleblowers, Review Finds |url=https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-appointees-used-whistleblower-protection-law-to-target-whistleblowers-review-finds |access-date=13 June 2023 |work=ProPublica |date=24 October 2019 }}</ref>

The US Department of Labor's Whistleblower Protection Program can handle many types of retaliation claims based on legal actions an employee took or was perceived to take in the course of their employment.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Whistleblower Protection {{!}} Whistleblower Protection Program |url=https://www.whistleblowers.gov/about-us |access-date=6 December 2019 |website=www.whistleblowers.gov}}</ref> Moreover, in the United States, if the retaliation occurred due to the perception of who the employee is as a person, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission may be able to accept a complaint of retaliation.<ref>{{Cite web |title=About the EEOC: Overview |url=https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/index.cfm |access-date=6 December 2019 |website=www.eeoc.gov}}</ref> In an effort to overcome those fears, in 2010, the [[Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act]] was put forth to provide great incentive to whistleblowers. For example, if a whistleblower gave information that could be used to legally recover over one million dollars, then they could receive ten to thirty percent of it.

Whistleblowers have risen within the technology industry as it has expanded in recent years. Protection for these specific whistleblowers falls short; they often end up unemployed or in jail. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act offers an incentive for private sector whistleblowers but only if they go to the [[U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission|SEC]] with information.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Hiltzik |first=Michael |date=12 July 2018 |title=Column: Whistleblowers need help. This tech entrepreneur wants to provide it |url=https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-whistleblowers-high-tech-20180713-story.html |website=Los Angeles Times}}</ref> If a whistleblower acts internally, as they often do in the technology industry, they are not protected by the law. Scandals such as the [[Dragonfly (search engine)|Dragonfly]] search engine scandal and the [[Snapchat|Pompliano]] lawsuit against Snapchat have drawn attention to whistleblowers in technology.

The federally recognized [[National Whistleblower Appreciation Day]] is observed annually on July 30, on the anniversary of the country's original 1778 whistleblower protection law.

===Other countries===
South Africa adopted comprehensive legal protections for whistleblowers with the Protected Disclosures Act of 2000 (PDA). The PDA was further strengthened by the passage of an Amendment Act in 2017.<ref>{{cite news |title=Whistleblowing – legislation in South Africa |url=https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/guides/whistleblowing-legislation-in-south-africa |work=Pinsent Masons |date=25 Sep 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Whistle-blower reporting and protection systems in Southern Africa: What are our commonalities? |url=https://www.unodc.org/documents/ft-uncac/wb/Session_3_AC_Savage.pdf |website=United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime |access-date=13 June 2023|date=7 February 2022}}</ref>

A number of other countries have adopted comprehensive whistleblower laws, including [[Ghana]]'s Whistleblowers Act (Act 720), 2006.<ref name="Suuk">{{cite news |last1=Suuk |first1=Maxwell |title=Why are Ghanaians reluctant whistleblowers? |url=https://www.dw.com/en/why-are-ghanaians-reluctant-whistleblowers/a-19441793 |access-date=13 June 2023 |work=dw.com |date=2 August 2016 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=WHISTLEBLOWER ACT, 2006 (ACT 720) |url=https://lawsghana.com/post-1992-legislation/table-of-content/Acts%20of%20Parliament/WHISTLEBLOWER%20ACT,%202006%20(ACT%20720)/163 |publisher=LawsGhana |access-date=13 June 2023}}</ref>
[[South Korea]],<ref name="Hayes">{{cite news |last1=Hayes |first1=Sean |title=Whistleblower Protections and Laws in South Korea |url=https://www.thekoreanlawblog.com/2021/02/whistleblower-protection-south-korea.html |access-date=13 June 2023 |work=The Korean Law Blog by IPG Legal |date=26 February 2021}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Freehills LLP |first1=Herbert Smith |last2=Yuen |first2=Celia |last3=Lucy |first3=Twomey |title=Korea's new whistleblowing legislation |url=https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=ad889a6e-83b2-4c72-aca1-c430aa0d9557 |work=Lexology |date=10 February 2012 }}</ref> [[Uganda]],<ref name="Tumuramye">{{cite journal |last1=Tumuramye |first1=Brenda |last2=Ntayi |first2=Joseph Mpeera |last3=Muhwezi |first3=Moses |title=Whistle-blowing intentions and behaviour in Ugandan public procurement |journal=Journal of Public Procurement |date=4 June 2018 |volume=18 |issue=2 |pages=111–130 |doi=10.1108/JOPP-06-2018-008 |s2cid=169602254 |url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328603508 |access-date=13 June 2023}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |title=Whistleblowers Protection Act, 2010 |url=https://ulii.org/akn/ug/act/2010/6/eng@2010-05-11 |publisher=Judiciary of Uganda |access-date=13 June 2023 |date=11 May 2010 }}</ref> 
[[Kenya]],<ref>{{cite web |title=The Whistleblower Protection Bill, 2021 |url=http://parliament.go.ke/sites/default/files/2021-11/The%20Whistleblower%20Protection%20Bill%2C%202021.pdf |website=Parliament of Kenya |access-date=13 June 2023}}</ref> and [[Rwanda]]<ref>{{cite web |title=Rwanda|date=2021 |url=https://www.pplaaf.org/country/rwanda.html |website=PPLAAF |access-date=13 June 2023}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=THE STATUS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LAW ON WHISTLE-BLOWERS IN RWANDA |url=https://www.unodc.org/documents/NGO/Fast-tracking/Revised_Report_TIRW_UNODC_Assessment_Whitsleblower_law.pdf |website=Transparency International Rwan |access-date=13 June 2023|date=2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=Public Procurement and Whistleblower Protection Systems Strengthened in Eastern Africa |url=https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/ngos/public-procurement-and-whistleblower-protection-systems-strengthened-in-eastern-africa.html |work=United Nations : Office on Drugs and Crime |date=29 October 2020 }}</ref> also have Whistleblower laws. The [[European Court of Human Rights]] ruled in 2008 that whistleblowing was protected as freedom of expression.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Bonucci |first1=Nicola |last2=El Ghozi |first2=Philippe Bouchez |title=Whistleblower Protection in Europe: Where do we Stand? {{!}} Paul Hastings LLP |url=https://www.paulhastings.com/insights/client-alerts/whistleblower-protection-in-europe-where-do-we-stand |work=www.paulhastings.com |date=March 14, 2023}}</ref>

[[Nigeria]] set up a whistleblowing policy against corruption and other ills.<ref>Guja v. Moldova, Application no. 14277/04 (2008)</ref> [[Nigeria]] formulated a [[Whistle-blowing policy in Nigeria|Whistleblowing Policy]] in 2016, but this has not yet been established as law. A new draft bill for Whistle-blower Protection was approved by the [[Cabinet of Nigeria|Federal Executive Council]] (FEC) as of December 2022.<ref name="Angbulu">{{cite news |last1=Angbulu |first1=Stephen |title=FG approves new whistle-blower bill |url=https://punchng.com/fg-approves-new-whistle-blower-bill/ |work=Punch Newspapers |date=14 December 2022}}</ref> The new draft whistleblower protection bill was presented to the [[National Assembly (Nigeria)|National Assembly]] for consideration by President [[Muhammadu Buhari]] in May 2023. Buhari's term as President ends on May 29, 2023.<ref name="Usman">{{cite news |last1=Usman |first1=Mustapha |title=Coalition lauds Buhari for transmitting whistleblower protection bill to NASS |url=https://www.icirnigeria.org/coalition-lauds-buhari-for-transmitting-whistleblower-protection-bill-to-nass/ |work=The ICIR- Latest News, Politics, Governance, Elections, Investigation, Factcheck, Covid-19 |date=10 May 2023}}</ref>

=== Advocacy for protection ===
Many [[Non-governmental organization|NGOs]] advocate for stronger and more comprehensive legal rights and protections for whistleblowers. Among them are the [[Government Accountability Project]] (GAP), Blueprint for Free Speech,<ref>{{cite web |url=https://blueprintforfreespeech.net/ |title=Blueprint for Free Speech – Meet the whistleblowers |website=blueprintforfreespeech.net}}</ref> [[Public Concern at Work]] (PCaW), the Open Democracy Advice Centre<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.opendemocracy.org.za/|title=Home |website=www.opendemocracy.org.za}}</ref> or in France, the Maison des Lanceurs d'Alerte (MLA).<ref>{{Cite web |title=Maison des Lanceurs d'alerte |publisher=Whistleblowing International Network |url=https://whistleblowingnetwork.org/Membership/Our-Members/Members/Maison-des-Lanceurs-d-alerte |access-date=2022-03-30 |website=whistleblowingnetwork.org}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Maison des Lanceurs d'Alerte |url=https://mlalerte.org/ |access-date=2022-03-30 |website=Maison des Lanceurs d'Alerte |language=fr-FR}}</ref> An international network - the Whistleblowing International Network (WIN) - aimed at gathering these NGOs.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Home |publisher=Whistleblowing International Network |url=https://whistleblowingnetwork.org/Home |access-date=2022-03-30 |website=whistleblowingnetwork.org}}</ref>

[[Frank Serpico]], an [[New York City Police Department|NYPD]] whistleblower, prefers to use the term "lamp-lighter"<!--[sic] That's the spelling in the article.--> to describe the whistleblower's role as a watchman.<ref>[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/to-whistleblow-is-like-a-death-sentence-five-people-who-risked-everything-to-speak-out-8542421.html Frank Serpico section, ''The Independent'', U.K.]</ref> The Lamplighter Project, which aims to encourage law enforcement officers to report corruption and abuse of power and helps them do so, is named based on Serpico's usage of the term.<ref>{{cite web |title=The Lamplighter Project |url=https://www.thelamplighterproject.org/ |access-date=2022-11-11}}</ref>