> protecting someone who had to break the law in order to whistleblow versus someone who did not are two very different things and I worry mixing the topics may

> protecting someone who had to break the law in order to whistleblow versus someone who did not are two very different things and I worry mixing the topics may become confusing "Confusing" is such an odd term to label this as. It's not confusing at all. It's pretty clear from your comment you just plain don't think they're the same and you don't want anyone else to either. Furthermore, your whole argument is based on an assertion which is based on no evidence. I would happily wager that Monsanto's employee agreement strictly forbids sharing trade secrets, private financial information with third parties, etc.