That warrant was different because it was for Edward Snowden.
Lavabit clearly feels he is a legitimate whistleblower. There is a reasonable argument that protecting a whistleblower from surveillance is morally valid (especially when his opposition to surveillance is the core of ).
Whether or not one thinks Lavabit should have done this probably depends on one's views on what Snowden did.
And we can all see what is normal in the US today.
All would agree it comes at some point (insert references to morally repugnant dictatorships etc).
Even democratically elected governments cross the line (insert historical references to 1930's Europe).
Even "good" governments cross the line (insert reference to numerous examples of legal persecutions of minority groups in most democracies).
Sometimes civil disobedience is a the morally correct thing to do. Was it in this case? Personally, I'm not sure either way.
While I agree 100% that Lavabit's actions were unlawful, just saying "there are rules" isn't enough to convince me that those same actions were "wrong".
I'm glad we can agree that Lavabit's action were unlawful... but please don't quote me out of context. "There are rules" was with regard to there being certain rules that need to be followed in order to qualify as a legitimate whistleblower. If you would like to argue that those rules need not be followed then I'll respectfully decline.
Yeah, that didn't play out so cleanly for Thomas Drake.
Not everyone completely lacks conviction and ideals, you know.