> The court came to this conclusion after deciding Snowden broke his non-disclosure agreements with the NSA and CIA. It noted the super-leaker did not offer up his book for a review by official censors nor did he clear speeches on intelligence matters with the US government as required by his employment contract from the time he worked for Uncle Sam.

He technically didn't work for the government, he was a contractor.

Not a lawyer, not even remotely. But isn't the government using civil contract law to impinge his constitutional rights? Grabbing _all_ of his money due to an employee contract seems like an over reach. Over what timeline did they argue this should be in effect? Snowden flew to Hong-Kong in 2013.

It is also curious, that given how he exposed illegal activity and coverups by the USG that the case has striking similarities to making filming illegal activity in slaughter houses illegal [1] Only the Ag cases, corporations are conspiring with the government to suppress communicating truths about illegal activity. In the Snowden case, the government is conspiring with itself to use civil law to put more stringent controls over what it could do using constitutional law. Spirit and the letter. Can the government form a public private partnership with itself?

If something is legally, ethically an morally wrong, disclosing that truth should take precedent over contract law, or contract law becomes a replacement for the state. Then free are the ones with zero dollars or all the dollars.

I would be very interested in the mood of corporate contract and anti-labor lawyers around this ruling. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ag-gag

"...his unlawful financial gains must be relinquished to the government," This cracks me up for some reason, lol.