2.) In the way that a company can be compelled to comply with an order from the government, including the requirement that the company may not disclose to anyone the nature of that order or the gag order, and that there is effectively no way to challenge such orders in a court of law.
>Have you actually lived in a country that has no elected representative?
> Favourable to or characterized by obedience to authority as opposed to personal liberty; strict, dictatorial.
It's certainly reasonable to argue about whether this actually applies; but I don't think that it represents a useless dilution of the word to think that it might. (Well, not 'dictatorial', but the rest of it.)
> It's certainly reasonable to argue about whether this actually applies
literally that it is reasonable to argue, i.e., that neither position is obviously irrefutably true; and also I think I've created enough of a de-rail already here; but, if I had to make an argument for authoritarianism, I think that I would claim that the concept of free-speech zones instantly implies, for some parts of US government at some times, more respect for authority than personal liberty.
You know, you can have "elected" "representatives" and still be authoritarian. You can make sure the ballot only has people you like on it, you can ignore what the representatives have to say, you can lie to the representatives so their decisions are compromised, you can restrict the flow of information to the electorate so their decisions are compromised... All of the above happen in the US. Hell, China has elected representatives - they're just all from the same party.
"Don't blame me - I voted for Kodos." - Homer J. Simpson.
2.) How is US government authoritarian? Have you actually lived in a country that has no elected representative?