It's because you are making assumptions that are not really...

It's because you are making assumptions that are not really convincing me.

First off, I realise that no analogy is perfect but in this case I also don't think you need to make analogies as the case seems pretty clear cut.

OK, I agree. (Which raises an interest side point, that if a government actively hides information from the people and then persecutes those who try to inform their fellow citizens we are no longer talking about a democracy.)

Don't you mean that the issue FOR YOU is how the information came out. See, I couldn't care less about that, in the ethical hierarchy the contents of the information are MUCH more important that 'how they came out'. And here is where your first analogy breaks down, my psychiatrists primary responsibility is to me and not to social media. Snowden (and other whistleblowers) sees his primary responsibility as being to the people of America over and above the U.S. government. I agree with him.

Are you privy to his employment contract? Even so, it's a moot point for the reasons already given.

Again, 'legal' and 'illegal' are meaningless terms. If the government decides what's right and wrong then it does so, primarily to it's own advantage and when left unchallenged and exposed leads to the most violent, murderous and cruel dictatorships in history. And just who was Snowden meant to be keeping secret from? North Korea? China? or the American people?

And if the priest or the shrink had information pertaining to someone who is dangerous and a public menace then I owuld have NO problems of them informing the relevant people.

Sure. For the same reasons that people has always fled despotic regimes, I'd have sought safe harbour too.