First the premise that the documents were illegally obtained. There is prior case law (Ellsberg) that suggests what Snowden did was legal, in that all document

First the premise that the documents were illegally obtained. There is prior case law (Ellsberg) that suggests what Snowden did was legal, in that all documents exposed were done through the media and journalists. The claim that it was illegal needs to be substantiated in court as it would be a vast departure from the case law established by the Supreme Court. Second, Facebook is not liable for what I post on my feed and the things that I communicate to my friends and family. Nor should they be. Facebook also is a private company that makes its money from spam. It is not a law enforcement agency, and it is not and should not be required to enforce the law. In any case, in authoritarian countries like the United States (countries where citizens are punished if they do not spy on and censor one another), there has been an increasing and dangerous trend toward claiming that legal things (such as posting information from international news sources, here The Guardian and Der Speigel) are illegal. The argument here that such behavior is illegal is a strong and present indicator of that authoritarian streak in the American political consciousness.