I just read that article in full, and it doesn't claim the same things you claim it does. Whatever your opinion of the government abusing surveillance power, P

I just read that article in full, and it doesn't claim the same things you claim it does. Whatever your opinion of the government abusing surveillance power, Poitras wasn't detained because the government didn't like what she was saying, she was detained because the government suspected that she had foreknowledge of an attack that took place in Iraq where a U.S. soldier was killed and kept silent about the attack so that she could film it. Now that belief was unjustified, ended up being wrong and in my opinion an absolute abuse of power by the government, but it is not a matter related to freedom of speech or censorship. You are taking that situation and exploiting it to push an unrelated narrative, and I think that's disingenuous.