I didn't miss that and I'm not sure what argument you're making. It sounds like you're trying to say that state censorship is conditional, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt to make your case.
I still don't understand the justification. Not trying to be difficult, I just don't see where you're going with this. Can you explain your point of view in plain terms?
I'm not really interested in doing that. My question was asked firstly to give you an opportunity to explain your perspective around what I saw to be a not obvious claim and secondly to bring light to the fact that you can't explain it (if that happens to be the case as it seems here).
The opportunity for you to explain it is an opportunity to exonerate your point of view. You don't have to take it.
You are essentially saying “The enemies of a government seek to undermine it so let’s stop people from talking to each other.”
I mean how is that logic different from what Stalin did during the Soviet Union? “The capitalists want to overthrow us, let’s deploy the totalitarian surveillance state to control and monitor the people to stop them from rising up”.
And how is any of this logic compatible with democracy or human liberty?
The use of an external threat to justify internal suppression of basic human freedoms such as the freedom of speech. Freedom of speech naturally includes the ability to communicate with others. When the government blocks people from communicating with each other using an external threat as an excuse that is Orwellian.
It is Orwellian because in George Orwell’s novel 1984 the 3 governments remaining in the world are at war with each other and each government uses the threat of the others for total surveillance and suppression of their own populations.
