Abstract: Recent work in philosophy has brought to light several ways in which attempts to perform speech acts can go wrong. The phenomena here include illocutionary silencing, ineffability, sincerity silencing, discursive injustice, and much more. In this paper, I consider how speakers are wronged when their speech goes astray in any of these ways, and whether there is a common wrong in these cases. I consider two hypotheses about what this wrong might be: first, that it is a variety of epistemic injustice, and second, that it is an unjust failure to perceive the speaker’s authority. I argue that neither of these hypotheses succeeds. I then sketch a third hypothesis that connects the wrong in these cases with unfair interference with self-determination. I argue that this third hypothesis does better at capturing the wrong involved, and also suggests some directions for future research.