This highlights an important failure of total lassiez-faire: by restricting or distorting access to information, you can effect a nefarious result without violence or even protests. It's like slowly boiling a frog. And it works especially well in a democracy, where political outcomes are (at least in principle) determined by those who are most susceptible to information control.
"Fire in a crowded theater" comes to mind. In reality, the judge making that comparison later rescinded it, and the guy won his case (about distributing anti-war pamphlets) anyways.
I do not claim that it is only a problem with lassiez-faire. Governments are of course capable of the same manipulation. I only claim that lassiez-faire does not solve the problem either, and indeed may be worse since the people believe they are free and are thus more complacent.
