> The judge also ruled that Snowden had breached his contractual responsibilities by giving speeches at the TED conference and other venues. Each of these speeches included slides with materials that were marked as classified.
There was another front page story today about a judge claiming that the wiki claims could not be tried because they could not confirm whether the government was indeed spying. Which is it: are the leaked documents real or fake? Awfully convenient interpretations
Appropriating Snowden's revenue streams is literally the only way the establishment can actually punish him in the foreseeable future.
Wikipedia is doing the right thing by pursuing the NSA legally, but they really have no chance at all, because of the legal framework upon which the NSA's power is built.
I see the connection you're pointing out, but I don't see any way anyone could legally act upon it. (Sans maybe a Congressional act)
If you're looking in good faith for actual answers to the question, you should only trust answers that quote the opinions and filings from both cases (or at least link to them) that illustrate the difference, else you would find it more productive to search for those opinions yourself.
Every other answering reply is very likely to be armchair conjecture.
There was another front page story today about a judge claiming that the wiki claims could not be tried because they could not confirm whether the government was indeed spying. Which is it: are the leaked documents real or fake? Awfully convenient interpretations