This study examines how scientists in German-speaking countries experience public engagement in traditional and social media when communicating about socio-ecological crises and whether negative reactions in public discourse relate to their willingness to continue such engagement. We conducted an online survey of 138 scientists with varying levels of public engagement, recruited through professional networks such as Scientists4Future. Participants reported media engagement frequency, positive and negative experiences, perceived reputational harm, perceived organisational support, and willingness to continue engaging publicly. Among participants with relevant media experience, positive experiences predominated; however, 78.4% reported insults, whereas 29.9% reported physical threats or legal risks. Negative experiences were associated with greater perceived reputational harm, which in turn was negatively associated with willingness to continue public engagement. Perceived organisational support showed no significant main effect on willingness to engage; however, when scientists perceived stronger organisational support, reputational harm was less strongly associated with lower willingness to engage. These findings provide empirical insight into dynamics that may contribute to discursive repression, understood here as decentralised processes that increase the perceived professional costs of participation in contested public debates. Rather than hostility per se being directly associated with reduced engagement, reputational concerns appear central to scientists’ engagement decisions.