Snowden committed civil disobedience. Which means he did break the law, but it was his moral duty to do so. He still needs to be held responsible for his actions.
I'm not saying this is a bad move, but it may not be a purely good move for the employees.
Last year, the Hugo Awards went to mostly minorities and women. In response, a fan group decided to fight back against what they saw as a liberal attack on their medium.
This clearly shows that Sad Puppies is in response to the winners of Hugo awards last year. Which is wrong on two fronts. First as you are unable to understand, this is Sad Puppies 3, as in the 3rd year it has been run. Second Sap Puppies nominees are all over the political spectrum and include women.
One of the core concepts of the book is the franchise is only available through Federal service. So in order to vote you must be indoctrinated into the government and there is no concept of loyal opposition. I don't recall the exact name, but everyone was required to take a class along the lines of History and Moral practices. One thing that has always stood out for me in those sections is the concept of total war. Again I may have the specifics wrong, but the teachers makes a comment about "ask the leading fathers of Carthage how war never solves anything" Implying that wiping out your enemies is not only a valid tactic but is the best one.
At the end with the last drop of Rico's Roughnecks, humanity is appearing to win. But I would say it is at the cost of what makes humans in general good and noble.
A key message throughout the book is that the ends justify the means, that to me is bleak.
Have you seen the numerous reviewers and authors who have stated that they will not read any Sad Puppies related work because it is was part of the slate? They have already come to the conclusion that anything Sad Puppies related is not worthy of winning a Hugo. Some have said they will read the Sad Puppies works but regardless of merit will rank them below No Award because of politics.