Self-Censorship

by Glenn C. Loury

There is no such thing as free, unconstrained speech. Laws and constitutions may protect us from the state when we speak our minds. But the state is just one possible constraint. Glenn Loury, one of America’s most outspoken and important intellectuals, provides a provocative and dazzling analysis of the powerful social forces that can prevent speakers from voicing unpopular views in public forums.

Every society, Loury notes, has norms to enforce. That can be a good There ought to be social sanctions for, say, compulsive liars. When, however, a society shows a low degree of tolerance for speech about matters of political importance, self-censorship proliferates and public discourse and policy suffer. The answer, Loury argues, is for as many of us as possible to be braver and more human – to take a risk and unapologetically “live within the truth”.

Loury first presented these ideas in the 1990s in a celebrated and prophetic essay about “political correctness.” In Self-Censorship he expands and updates the account, deploying his analytical powers and psychological acuity to diagnose our current political climate. The result illuminates prevailing social dynamics with the same brilliant and startling effect that made the paper an instant classic thirty years ago.

Genres: Politics, Political Science

140 pages, Hardcover

Published July 29, 2025

About the author

Glenn C. Loury is Merton P. Stoltz Professor of the Social Sciences in the Department of Economics at Brown University. An award-winning economic theorist, he is the author of One by One from the Inside Out: Essays and Reviews on Race and Responsibility in America and coauthor of Race, Incarceration, and American Values.

Reviews

[Evelyn · Rating 4 out of 5]

The two essays in the book offer an insightful look into why people choose to censor their speech and not speak out publicly on issues and actions that they disagree with. The coda (brief second essay) which concerns the Gaza War, and the position of certain groups that conflate opposition to the War and antisemitism is an especially strong statement on this subject as the author, who supports Israel’s right to exist, discusses his decision not to voice opposition on humanitarian grounds to Israel’s continued warfare in Gaza during a speech at a Jewish venue. He pointedly applies the rationale and criteria that he set out for self-censorship in the first essay and acknowledges that he did so to avoid misinterpretation of his remarks and positions on the subject, and ostracism by his colleagues and social cohort. He also argues that people need to be willing to face the consequences and have the courage utter the hard truths that their audiences often do not want to hear.

This is an interesting, albeit rather dry essay, that is very pertinent in a time when thought police on both sides of the political spectrum seek to curtail free speech and ensure conformity of political viewpoints. The second essay makes reading the first essay worth the reader’s while.