PRISM

[Lamplighter]

V, we are probably using different terms to speak of different ideas.

"Prior restraint", as you say, is what the authority/owner is attempting to impose
by having the power to impose a non-disclosure clause or agreement.

"Informed consent" is what the person needs for a good-faith and
continued binding to any contract or (non-disclosure) agreement.

When a person discovers or encounters something they were not informed about,
their "informed consent" may be tainted, and thereby also is their continued obligation to a signed document.

Analogies are not good arguments, but having said that I still
think about something like this: Imagine military personnel are required
to sign non-disclosure agreements regarding all battlefield activities,
and then something like the My Lai Massacre in Viet Nam occurs.

Can the government impose prior restraint on everything, anything,
if the continuity of a person's conscience is (or knowledge) is broken ?

Sure, force/punishment can be used to make the person weigh the alternatives.
But in the long run we see thru civil disobedience that it often backfires.