In fact, the US government might be one of the parties I censor my communication with, though I hadn't fully considered it in my thought experiment.

In such a situation requiring moral judgement, having more options is always better, and one option when dealing with sensitive information is to keep it private. The 'keep it private' option should be judged in the context of the facts at hand, not automatically and universally ruled out ahead of time on the basis that it is 'self-censorship'.

In fact, not saying anything is potentially as much an act of freedom as speaking out. It's not always the correct choice, but should always be an available one.

The US is fascist because it appeals to civic duty in an effort to prevent sensitive information from reaching parties who may use it to inflict death (for example) to US citizens? In other words, appeal, as in 'Please?' Oh, the oppression.

A simple thought experiment: you are a nuclear engineer and are privy to some information not widely known in the literature or on the internet that, in the wrong hands, could cause great harm. Therefore, as an act of prudence, you keep it to yourself/your colleagues. Congratulations, you just 'censored' yourself. A word, like 'nuclear', which causes a Pavlovian response in a large percentage of the population, even on Slashdot.

Civic Duty. Prudence. Not bad ideas. It's the expansion of this idea to absurd lengths that's the real problem.