The World Assembly finds as follows:Now, therefore, be GA 539 'Whistleblower Protection Act' repealed.
- Section 1(a) unclearly defines its knowledge requirement, defining 'whistleblower' as 'any person disclosing previously known' improprieties. This definition turns historians into whistleblowers for reporting on previously known scandals that occurred two hundred years ago. The restrictions in section 3 and 4 on whistleblower activities should not also be applied to school textbook authors and researchers on the long-dead.
- Privacy rights are sometimes infringed when in the public interest. This should be judged on a case-by-case basis and not with blanket legislation which effectively makes government workers' finances public knowledge. People who work for the government should have privacy rights in the same way normal citizens do. Section 4, which indemnifies media outlets from punishment for 'the dissemination of financial information of a government official', violates the privacy rights of the vast majority of people who work for the government, who are inferior officers thereof and not – in any way – public figures. At best GA 539 says 'if you have nothing to fear, you have nothing to hide'. At worst, it opens government workers to identity theft and harassment.
- Section 3 – stating that '[w]histleblowers and media outlets may not publish personally identifying information of third parties unless said third party is themselves party to a crime committed by a government official' – is poorly written.
- Interpreting the prohibition to apply separately to both subjects, it prohibits the media from publishing a person's personally identifying information (such as names) unless that person is party to a crime committed by a government official. This creates a substantial limit on the freedom of the press, stopping media outlets from reporting on crimes committed entirely by private individuals and unconnected to government action. Moreover, it harms the ability of the press to report on private misdeeds, meaning more unethical behaviour goes unreported, harming society writ large.
- Instead, if viewing the prohibition to apply to joint publishing action by both whistleblowers and media outlets, the provision becomes almost entirely surplusage, as whistleblowers do not publish: media outlets do. The first interpretation would be preferred to one which effectively omits the entire clause, leaving member nations with an unworkably restrictive press that is unable to hold private entities – be they powerful or not – to account.
- Section 6(a) prohibits member nations from seeking legal recourse in a defamation suit unless a statement was 'proven to be demonstrably false'. 'Proven' is in the past tense. Such a bar in effect closes off all recourse: to have something proven false in a court of law, it must first be proved before a judge, which cannot happen because 'seek[ing] legal recourse' is prohibited unless the statement is already proven false. Even governments have a right not to be lied about and to recover damages against those who maliciously impugn their reputations.
- Legislation passed by the World Assembly cannot be amended or changed, only repealed, meaning that correcting these flaws can only be accomplished by repeal.
