3 ms·

Yes it does. From google: Vindication: "proof that someone or something is right, reasonable, or justified." A whistleblower is not a whistleblower unless the

by mowenz 9y ago

Yes it does. From google: Vindication: "proof that someone or something is right, reasonable, or justified." A whistleblower is not a whistleblower unless they reveal wrongdoing. Edit: For example: Snowden is by definition a whistleblower because the information he leaked revealed illegal and unconstitutional activity. The courts already ruled it illegal. So he is by definition already a whistleblower/vindicated of wrongdoing. Perhaps the OP intended (and rightfully so) some statement about public opinion/perception of the value of whistleblowers. By contrast: someone who leaks information containing no wrongdoing or nothing illegal is not a whistleblower. In other words: perhaps in such cases some extenuating circumstances may mitigate or vindicate the offender of wrongdoing. Whistleblowers, however, are not in such situations.

azernik 9y ago
The whistleblowers themselves do need vindication though; proof that their actions were justified. See e.g. the need for Snowden's leaks, and his responsible handling of sensitive information, to be vindicated publicly.
- mowenz 9y ago
  >proof that their actions were justified The thing is that while the courts already ruled Snowden's leaks were of legitimately of illegal activity, and in this sense he has been proven in the right in the eyes of the law--in other words, vindicated as a legitimate whistle blower--what you're talking about with 'proof his actions were justified in the public's eye' is about public education or cultural standards. Where we disagree is with the fact that going by the definition of vindication, he has already been "proven to be right, justified" and "cleared of blame." in other words, Just because the public is unaware of this does not mean it has not happened. There are plenty of things in which public opinion is frankly wrong--it doesnt change the fact of the matter though. Now you may go so far to expand on your point that his action of whistleblowing in itself needs vindication--but that is a different statement and one which would be about whistle blowing in general.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

by mowenz 9y ago

azernik 9y ago

The whistleblowers themselves do need vindication though; proof that their actions were justified. See e.g. the need for Snowden's leaks, and his responsible handling of sensitive information, to be vindicated publicly.

mowenz 9y ago
>proof that their actions were justified The thing is that while the courts already ruled Snowden's leaks were of legitimately of illegal activity, and in this sense he has been proven in the right in the eyes of the law--in other words, vindicated as a legitimate whistle blower--what you're talking about with 'proof his actions were justified in the public's eye' is about public education or cultural standards. Where we disagree is with the fact that going by the definition of vindication, he has already been "proven to be right, justified" and "cleared of blame." in other words, Just because the public is unaware of this does not mean it has not happened. There are plenty of things in which public opinion is frankly wrong--it doesnt change the fact of the matter though. Now you may go so far to expand on your point that his action of whistleblowing in itself needs vindication--but that is a different statement and one which would be about whistle blowing in general.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]