Depending on what was leaked, the Whistleblower Protection Act should allow him to do exactly that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower_Protection_Act

Unfortunately for Snowden, the Act only covers federal employees, not the private subcontractors whose security clearances may expose them to criminal acts, but whose employment status leaves them unable to report them safely.

The US doesn't ban hate speech at least, so in that respect it's freer than a lot of other countries.

It does what a certain segment of the society wants. Government for the professional upper class by the professional upper class.

That's what it appears on the outside - The Hong Kong government and Chinese government spend a lot of effort to maintain this image. Take a deeper look and you will see this isn't the case. The government has previously tried to sneak Chinese propaganda into primary schools as well as pass copyright laws that will outlaw (often political) satire and allow governments to sue on behalf of companies(!!). It was only from SOPA style opposition as well as massive street protests (measured in hundreds of thousands of people) these measures haven't passed yet.

Source: I was born in Hong Kong.

If China cuts pollution, respects human rights, and improves working/live for a lot of people (those are the complains I hear about)it should be a good place.

Then the only debatable thing that remains in censorship, and "absolute power corrupts absolutely".

It might not be a democracy, but if people are truly happy/content ... why would they riot ?

We in the US tend to underestimate the power that populations have even if it's not explicitly linked to voting.

No. On paper it's a Republic. In reality the USA is run by a bunch of self serving politicians and unelected bureaucrats who get their positions from the special interest and big business lobbies.

It will only get worse as long as people want security over liberty and elections are decided by money and not voters.

Unless you're a democratic activist: http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2011/eap/187483.htm (Section 2(a)). (" Democratic activists claimed central government authorities closely monitored their e-mails and Internet use. In a Netizens Power survey, 33 percent of users of Golden Forum, a popular local Internet community forum, said they had some of their online posts deleted over the past year and almost half indicated this was because their posted content was 'too politically sensitive.'")

Also, the system they have in place for surveillance of telecommunications seems exactly the same as the one the U.S. does: "The use of covert surveillance and the interception of telecommunications and postal communications can be granted only to prevent or detect 'serious crime' or protect 'public security.' The law establishes a two-tiered system for granting approval for surveillance activities, under which surveillance of a more intrusive nature requires the approval of a judge, and surveillance of a less intrusive nature requires the approval of a senior law-enforcement official." (Section 1(f)).

Indeed, the U.S. system is a bit more stringent, because "surveillance of a less intrusive nature" requires a law-enforcement official to get a FISA warrant (from a court that isn't an Article III court but is composed of Article III judges).