But these are writers speaking as writers, not members of the general public. Their criticisms of state-backed surveillance should therefore be different than

But these are writers speaking as writers, not members of the general public. Their criticisms of state-backed surveillance should therefore be different than the generalized chilling of expression felt by the public at large. Writers have always known their words are inspected. The public, those who previously did not expect their communications to be monitored, they have far more to fear from electronic surveillance. The OP, and several commentators here, also conflate fear of surveillance with fear of the burgeoning police state. They are different concepts. A police state can/will attack a journalist without any surveillance beyond a police officer reading a newspaper.