Speech under Authoritarianism (updated)
Governments in the United States are ramping up their attacks on freedom of speech, with state and federal officials getting people—including professors—fired or investigated for expressing their opinions about public figures, and the president suggesting he will shut down media that is critical of him and his allies.

How should these conditions affect what you say, and how you say it?
What are the options? Here’s one way of breaking them down:
A. “fuck tha police” — be more provocative in your speech than you otherwise would be as a form of protest
B. “speak up” — talk more about the importance of freedom of expression and academic freedom
C. “carry on” — proceed as you normally would
D. “play it safe” — take more precautions with how you say things and where you say them
E. “roll over” — refrain from saying anything the authorities may not like
Which of these is right for you may depend on your circumstances.
The American Association of University Professors (AAUP), has issued a set of “Strategies to Protect Yourself Online in the Current Climate.” Among them are suggestions for behavior on social media, which seem to fit with the “D” option, above:
1. Set your personal social media accounts to private mode. When prompted, approve the setting to make all previous posts private.
2. Be mindful that anything you post online can be screenshotted and shared.
3. Before posting or reposting online commentary, pause and ask yourself:
a. Am I comfortable with this view potentially being shared with my employer, my students, or the public?
b. Have I (or the person I am reposting) expressed this view in terms I would be comfortable sharing with my employer, my students, or the public?
4. In your social media bios, state that the views expressed through the account represent your own opinions and not your employer. You do not need to name your employer.
5. Consider posting positive statements about positions you support rather than negative statements about positions you disagree with. Some examples could be:
-
- Academic freedom is nonnegotiable.
- The faculty united will never be divided.
- Higher ed research saves lives.
- Higher ed transforms lives.
- Politicians are interfering with your child’s education.
You can see the full list of the AAUP’s suggestions here. Discussion welcome.
UPDATE (9/22/25): Over the weekend, Alec Walen, professor of law and philosophy at Rutgers University, posted about how an upcoming workshop on his forthcoming book at the Naval Academy was cancelled because of comments critical of President Trump that Walen made on Facebook. He writes:
I’ve been cancelled by the Naval Academy. This is and should be under the radar news, given Trump’s recent attacks on the First Amendment, going after comedians like Jimmy Kimmel. But I still want to share the news, not because it’s bad for me, but because it’s just another angle on the bad things going on in the country.
Here’s the story: A colleague at the Academy was working on arranging for me to come to campus for a workshop on my forthcoming book: Punishment, Penalty, and Incapacitation. Then he wrote a few days ago:
“I have bad news.” He explained that “All visiting speakers have to be forwarded to department chairs and potentially up to the Provost for approval. Their public speeches, publications, and social media have to be analyzed to make sure they have not said anything critical of the president, the administration, the executive orders, etc.” Based on that analysis, his request to have that workshop was denied. To comfort me, he added that “a significant number of speakers have been refused this semester as well as last spring on these grounds.”
This is pathetic. I’m not hurt. I would have liked to have had a book workshop at the Academy, but I will get enough workshops on my book. The real loss is the degradation of the intellectual tradition in the places that train our future officers, leaders of the strongest military in the world. What’s pathetic is the thought that they can face bombs and bullets, but they must not be exposed to the likes of people who have said something critical of the president, his administration, or his executive orders.
Might there be more to the story? Did I say some really treasonous things? No. I’ve posted many critical remarks about Trump and his administration, but I’ve never called for violence. Have I brought my personal politics into a professional setting? No. I’ve always been quite careful on that score. I never criticize or praise the government in class except on very narrow grounds having to do with the topic of the class or support for law.
So, no, there’s no explanation to be found except what I was told: I’ve been cancelled because I’ve said things on social media–RIGHT HERE, ON FACEBOOK–that are “critical of the president, the administration, the executive orders, etc.”
This raises the question: Why would the administration think I’m too dangerous to invite to speak at a military Academy? Does it think the midshipmen are snowflakes? Presumably that’s not it. Presumably, the answer is that the administration doesn’t want midshipmen entertaining critical views that might make them disloyal.
It was not always so. I recall a conference at West Point, in October 2023, on “the Ethics of War and Peace.” At least one pacifist was amongst the speakers and quite a few were in attendance. The cadets there that day listened to a wide range of critical views. My bet is that the workshop, like their classes on military ethics, got them to think. The goal is to have leaders in the military who can tell what an unlawful order is and why it would be right to resist one.
This, presumably, is what the administration cannot abide. In a time when it wants to rebrand the “Department of Defense” as the “Department of War,” critical thought is a problem. It does not want anyone putting up a roadblock. No more people like General Milley telling Trump that he must not invoke the Insurrection Act to deploy active-duty troops to quell protests.
For those of us who care about our free speech rights, our rights to criticize, this sort of thoughtful engagement is exactly what we should want.
My cancellation is just a drop in the bucket. It doesn’t matter in itself. But it’s one more occasion to cry out: stop!
I think advising D style strategies as a general rule is very bad indeed, paradigmatic complying in advance.
Surely the Harper’s Letter folks will save us!
As a general rule, yes, but specifically for immigrants: not so very bad, at least prudentially. I’m not a citizen myself and the shape and nature of my public speech has definitely changed since January. Not because I enjoy licking boots but because I don’t exactly fancy the prospect of losing everything here and having to move my family across the ocean.
If we get fired, we are in much less of a position to do good.
I think there are ways to combine B and D type strategies. Be more careful about speech that could be (maliciously mis)interpreted as supporting violence, while at the same time being more explicit about calling for people to look carefully at the Constitution, and the history of speech restrictions in the vicinity of what is being pushed.
If the administration were merely pushing for further regulations on speech that condones violence, then there would be a continuity between what the administration would be doing, and the kind of calls for awareness of the harms speech can cause others that have been discussed across the political spectrum over the past decade (particularly in circles concerned about the safety of people minoritized along racial, sex, and gender lines).
The deeper problem is that it seems to me that the administration is pushing for much greater restriction on liberals and the left generally. In this context, being careful to avoid speech that endorses violence is *not* compliance in advance. We can forcefully advocate for liberal and/or leftist ideas (B) while carefully avoiding anything that could sound like calls for violence (D).
well next time we here that the humanities are preparing people to lead the way into better worlds we will know what that’s worth…
ugh “hear”, pardon my typing
I’d like to divide option (C) into two, since I’m already hearing from conservatives that there’s nothing to see here. So one motivation for (C) is that there is no problem to respond to. The other is that there is indeed a problem but you have already been making “good trouble” and you shouldn’t change course… I’m not sure where I belong in the choice between (A) (B) and (C). Suffice it to say I’m glad I assigned On Tyranny as a supplemental required reading for my large Intro to Phil class.
In the spirit of the AAUP’s 5th suggestion, I would like to hereby commend and express my strong, positive support for everyone who refrained from suggesting that Charlie Kirk deserved to be shot and killed for his speech.
Yes, and those who did not revealed themselves to be more like Anytus, Miletus, and Lycon than Socrates.
Would you be interested in elaborating? Thank you in advance.
Perhaps this supposed authoritarian suppression of speech is unprecedented. Perhaps it is not. I don’t know. But it seems to me that how we evaluate it, and how we respond to it, should depend on its actual, and not its perceived, severity. It seems bad to me, and I think speech should be protected consistent with our Constitution. But I don’t have all the relevant details.
With that out of the way, I want to float an idea: even if these are especially dangerous times for speech, perhaps those of us who would like things to be different should focus less on our power to say what we want and more on our power to associate with whom we want.
Maybe I’m not an ally or whatever, but I think a concern with whether or not we can give voice to certain views in front of a captive audience — an audience comprising students, or faceless, reflexive stans and haters, or faceless, highly intelligent stans and haters, etc. — has unduly overtaken a concern with whether or not we can get together with our neighbors and organize and exert actual political power in an effort to govern ourselves.
Sure, it might be a symptom of an underlying disorder if we have to think twice before broadcasting a view for fear of a boss forcing you out. But (so far!) we don’t have to think twice before speaking with neighbors and doing the hard work of grass-roots organizing. (One lesson from the civil rights movement is that the separation of church and state is good not only for keeping the church out of the state but for keeping the state out of the church, too. Churches were indispensable sites of face-to-face organizing.)
It’s a fantasy that broadcasting your view is the paradigm of political engagement. And protests can be important, but they should not be the point. They should simply be the most visible aspect of what is actually the sober, well-organized, and much more important movement to work with friend and foe to try to reform what you think needs reform.
“… a concern with whether or not we can give voice to certain views in front of a captive audience … has unduly overtaken a concern with whether or not we can get together with our neighbors and organize and exert actual political power in an effort to govern ourselves. …But (so far!) we don’t have to think twice before speaking with neighbors and doing the hard work of grass-roots organizing.”
I think this is so true and so important. Except in my experience (just today, for the first time) the last part is not true.
For years I’ve engaged in biweekly conversations with a neighbour quite happily, despite our very different lifestyles and careers and our quite different political outlooks). I value our conversations; I generally learn from them. More importantly, I think it is useful in these vexed times to connect person-to-person especially with those with whom one lacks (at least superficially) a tribal affinity. Though he is not a an academic philosopher, this person is generally capable of talking philosophically in the sense of being able to track conversations focused entirely on abstract principles. Thus in the past 6 or 7 years our rather extremely different political orientations have not interfered at all in our ability to have good conversations. However, today I was tested to see what I would say about an recent event and its aftermath occurring in the US. (This despite the fact that he is born Canadian and we are both located in Canada.) I was unable to beg off from discussing the event without my declining to speak being interpreted as me taking a particular position on questions surrounding the event. The question he tried to force me to answer had an obvious factual answer no one could dispute. But I resisted, saying I would not speak on the topic (not explaining outloud that there in a slippery slide other associated concepts would come to one’s mind once the word that gave the answer had been spoken, and then one would fall headlong into an Orwellian abyss, theme song from Deliverance playing in the background). The conversation was occurring as it turns out right the time a certain motion was before some part of congress. I guess that’s enough detail for you.
Still I agree with your comment that in the US it is talking to people personally and in physical space that matters now, for as long as it is possible.
Data relevant to the reality and severity of the crackdown:
https://www.insidehighered.com/opinion/columns/debatable-ideas/2025/09/19/censorship-authoritarians-dream?fbclid=IwY2xjawM7q3JleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHg5yZh2-zNa0QbhhRf1IffYJ3JXmPVRIYS9e9JsvVAsrJaULcCDME4w0-haC_aem_KgCyY8n9SajJq40yv9T1Rg
“More professors in the United States have been fired for controversial views in the past week than any other week in all of American history. The violations of academic freedom, free speech and due process on campuses in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination have been extraordinary and indefensible.”
I’m not sure I’d call this ‘data’: the author doesn’t evidence his claim, and most of the links he gives are to firings of administrative staff or other non-professors.
That said, it might well be true; and there have certainly been multiple firings of people in the last week for exercising their extramural academic-freedom rights, and even one would be too many.
You’re right, that article doesn’t present enough evidence. The author says there are too many cases for him to describe in full, which is plausible, but it might be helpful to have a coarse-grained sense of the magnitude of the issue. Given that influential elements in the US government seek to replace the existing professoriate, even coarse-grained numbers of disciplinary actions have some value, I think. It goes without saying that to draw firm conclusions, we’d need to get finer-grained in multiple ways.
I compiled a list of disciplinary actions against professors and lecturers for political speech over the last two weeks. I did the same for Israel/Palestine-related disciplinary actions going back to 2022 and for disciplinary actions relating to political speech 2020-Sept. 2022.
I used ChatGPT to compile these lists; my apologies to LLM abolitionists, but I find this worth knowing and wouldn’t have time to do this any other way.
Here’s what I found:
Over the last two weeks: 14 disciplined including four terminated (so far–termination proceedings have been initiated against some of the 14 who haven’t yet been fired)
I/P related disciplinary actions 2022 to present: nine disciplined including three terminated
January 2020 to September 2022: seven disciplined, four terminated
One thing that stands out is that it’s only taken two weeks to exceed years’ worth of disciplinary actions. And these other periods both included highly contentious issues (COVID-19 policy, BLM protests, Gaza War). Another thing to note is that over the last two weeks, all the disciplinary actions, except vs. Rebel Cole, target people on the left of the spectrum. 2020-2022 is much more evenly distributed across the “two sides” of the political spectrum.
LAST TWO WEEKS
ISRAEL/PALESTINE-RELATED DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS 2022-PRESENT
JANUARY 2020 to SEPTEMBER 2022
Looks pretty dire. Thanks for doing the work.
Thank you!
Of course, going with D and E will just make the trumpistas stronger, so ultimately, it will just lead to even further restrictions on speech. After all, these so-called conservatives have abundantly demonstrated that their understanding of free speech is like their understanding of everything else: they can do all the things that their opposition shouldn’t do (including incitement to violence) and if you give in to their demands, they will just demand even more. Hence strategies D and E are self-defeating and that is exactly where Trump and co will want you to be.
This is not to say that at least for some, such as immigrants without citizenship, following A-C could be supererogatory. There is some balancing involved in concrete cases, no questioning that. However, and again, too much balancing might land you in the position that while you did all they have asked of you and yet, they will still get rid of you. We re talking about a system sliding into a permanent condition of unpredictability. The führer decides what is to be spoken of and he might change his mind any minute.
D(2) and D(3) were always sensible strategies, even prior to the present moment.
I think B. Speak up.
But does this count? I have been teaching free speech, immigration, the legitimate bounds of gvmt as philosophical topics more and more. Students on both sides are very interested and deliberate about the issues. Its beautiful.
I try to be neutral (I try hard not to ‘leak’) and only present the views of our authors.
I think this could be finer grained and I think we should also keep a basic framework of risk versus benefit here. So for academics I think A is usually going to be high risk but no to negative benefit. (For a comedian it might be much more appropriate and I think Kimmel is extremely brave.) B in social media and online are somewhat risky but, for most people, practically certain to do no real good. Op eds and the like, which by their nature are likely to be B rather than A, are much higher risk but also have at least a chance to do some good. A in class is risky, counterproductive, and inappropriate in other ways. But I think anyone who has real job security probably should do B to some degree in any class that touches on ethics, political philosophy, or even just argument. Among other things I’m going to spend a lot of time on Mills “On Liberty” next semester (too late to retool class this semester).
But look folks have bills and obligations. If you’re an adjunct, work in a ruby red state, or just have a spineless boss who’d throw you to the wolves at the first sign of trouble I’m not going to fault you for making some compromises even if that looks like D. I mean Liam Kofi Bright I generally agree with you but what kind of Marxist doesn’t cut folks some slack for bad material conditions?
The sort of Marxist whose salary depends on his not understanding certain things, Sinclair might say.
At a time when our incomes are precarious, it is prudent to cut back on our spending. We should cut first from companies that collaborate with authoritarians.
If a company that owns a newspaper stops that newspaper from making election endorsements, stop buying from that company. Close your account. Tell them why.
If a media company that runs a television network fires a centrist commentator for bland jokes the far right absurdly deems offensive, cancel your subscription, if you have one. Tell them why. Do not buy or rent their media. Speak of their stories no more. There are better stories.
“Far right” and “centrist” both in this case seem a bit … skewed.
Were it not for the honesty and integrity of those in power, the present situation would call to mind this extract from https://www.thefp.com/p/the-nazis-did-not-weaponize-free
“Although the Weimar constitution, like that of the United States, had specifically protected freedom of speech, in 1934 the Nazi regime made it a crime to criticize the Führer or his party. Even jokes at their expense were banned on pain of imprisonment or worse.
Hitler took Bolshevik Russia as his template, turning Nazi Germany into a state no less totalitarian than Stalin’s Soviet Union already was. All opposing views were ruthlessly expunged from German society”.
See also https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/nazi-propaganda-and-censorship.
Outside of attacks of free speech, were the administration a ramshackle caravan of criminals or chancers, I would not be surprised to see this ploy deployed in due course against ‘enemies’ in the business world:
https://virtusinterpress.org/CORPORATE-TAKEOVERS-RUSSIAN-STYLE.html
For the most part, if you (a) use big words, (b) stay out of today’s news, you can say what you like without much fear.
If you post a snide hot-take about Kirk, or whatever fresh hell comes next, expect problems. If you write a book arguing axiological anti-realism, it’s fine.
Just don’t mount the tiger if you don’t want to ride. Why do you want to ride the tiger? Do you think it will achieve anything?
This is similar to what I was told when teaching in a softly authoritarian and non-democratic country. Don’t talk about these particular certain specific topics in your classes, but you can teach about nihilism, anarchism, liberalism etc. as abstract theories. The regime doesn’t see abstract political philosophy as threatening.
“No, no, you misunderstand… We’re teaching about capital dislocation theory. … Karl Marx? No, you must have it confused; Karl Sagan, maybe?”
I think we should choose A when repression is trying to make timidity feel like common sense prudence. Provocation is not mindless edginess; it’s a counter-measure to the chilling effect. When officials telegraph that any dissent may be punished, the marginal “safety” of moderation collapses, so escalated candor becomes instrumentally rational. Sharp, unambiguous speech forces power to show its hand, raises the visible cost of censorship, and re-anchors the window of civility by occupying the space authorities are trying to cordon off. It’s also epistemically useful: provocation stress-tests the reasons we give, reveals which norms are genuine and which are merely enforced, and models courage for those with fewer protections. Rights are use-it-or-lose-it goods; under pressure, exercising them loudly is how you keep them. Do it with discipline—aim at institutions and arguments, not private targets; be truthful, nonviolent, and specific—but don’t sand down the edge. In a climate of intimidation, calibrated provocation is solidarity, pedagogy, and deterrence all at once. It is a kind of counter-censorship which forces the enforcement of draconian policy or calls the governments bluff. I understand the need to be careful, but right now we seem to not have the luxury of being precious with our employment as if it is too high a price to pay for our freedom.
I can’t resist pointing out that talk is cheap, especially behind a pseudonym, and that if we can’t afford to be too precious with our employment we shouldn’t too precious with our reputation either.
The key is to master the aesthetics of edgy contrarianism and deploy them on behalf of the regime—you know, punch down.
What is this in reference to, Felix? Or is it Julian, whose role you seem to have taken over?
Dear lord this place can be humorless sometimes.
I thought your joke was hilarious. You just didn’t get mine. Maybe it was too edgy for you.
Of course I don’t get it; I don’t even know who you are, who Julian is, or why your immediate thought was about them, yourself, and the presumption of a personal slight rather than a general riff building on the “talk is cheap” idea.
Humorless
Whoever Julian is, I hope he sees this bro, so he knows you’re thinking about him, still. He might get a good laugh out of it.
I hope he does. We all miss him. You should meet up with him, you’d get along.
Shouldn’t there be something between A (Be Provocative) and B (Defend Free Speech)? Something like, A.2) Be Brave in expressing opinions that may draw censorship? Bravery seems important right now, especially for those in positions of authority and security (e.g. tenured) that make it easier. Perhaps that is what is meant by Be Provocative. But then you don’t have to be provocative in your opinions to draw an authoritarians’ ire. Just saying what you think will.
Assorted observations of some people who might have an idea what they’re talking about-
https://prismreports.org/2025/08/21/obedience-fascism-washington-dc/
‘Another way out: Hiding and obedience won’t stop fascism:By being obedient to the point of giving up all self-determination, we’re poised to return to conditions that many before us fought long and hard to overturn.”
William C. Anderson
August 21st, 2025
“Countless people have ended up in cells and graves, thinking that they could wait for change rather than force its occurrence. Many thought they could hide, be quiet, or comply enough to avoid their destruction when that wasn’t true. There is no great rescuer coming to save us if we behave long enough. What we know should be taken seriously. Our enemies are relentless, and only a relentless opposition willing to fight by any means necessary will stop them. If you want to know where to find the firestarter for that opposition, locate the nearest mirror.”
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/political-science/articles/10.3389/fpos.2022.951236/full
Ville Suuronen/ Centre of Excellence in Law, Identity and the European Narratives, University of Helsinki
Front. Polit. Sci., 30 August 2022
Sec. Comparative Governance
Volume 4 – 2022
‘Why are political discussions with fascists impossible? Reflections on the far-right politics of silence’
“Unlike fascists themselves claim, fascism does not represent one political “opinion” among others, but rather the attempt to replace and eradicate the plurality of opinions—an attempt that is most often thinly veiled under a relativistic disguise or empty talk concerning freedom of speech. Discussion with far-right extremists is not impossible because their opinions represent unconventional or “non-hegemonical” views of understanding a particular political issue or event—discussions with fascists are impossible because they think that politics and discussions are, by definition, nothing less than opposites16. Therefore, public political discussions with fascists should not be avoided merely for the reason that they apriori profess their unwillingness to be persuaded by a better argument, but rather because for fascists, political discussions function as self-expressive platforms, which they use to ridicule the liberal-parliamentarian idea of “eternal discussions…
It is precisely this semantic machine, built around the inextricably related concepts of sovereignty and homogeneity that creates a certain lexicon of violence…
In the name of the imagined identity between those who rule and those who are ruled, fascist politics operates on an all-comprehensive silencing that aims to suppress all diverging political opinions.”
https://www.theeduledger.com/opinion/article/15752567/the-problem-with-capitulating-to-fascism-in-higher-education
‘The Problem with Capitulating to Fascism in Higher Education’
Frederick V. Engram Jr. / The EDU Ledger
Aug 8, 2025
“The worst possible response from higher education institutions is capitulation. Instead of forming coalitions, deploying legal resources, and mobilizing their extensive alumni networks, institutions are either confronting this administration in isolation or retreating into silence. Someone should inform higher education that fascism doesn’t reward compliance. It seeks total destruction and will not protect those who failed to oppose it simply because they remained quiet.”
Suddenly, everyone in the profession is now against cancel culture and concerned about attacks against free speech. It would have been nice to see that concern ten years ago.
I expressed that concern here on Daily Nous in 2015.