Chilling effect: Difference between revisions
Addes "Outside of the legal context..." to lede. --~~~~Doug Bashford |
Gave Example & ref Outside of the legal context, to Lede. Bashford |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
In a legal context, a '''chilling effect''' is the inhibition or discouragement of the legitimate exercise of [[natural and legal rights]] by the threat of legal sanction.<ref>chilling effect. (n.d.). Retrieved October 19th, 2011, from http://law.yourdictionary.com/chilling-effect</ref> The right that is most often described as being suppressed by a chilling effect is the US [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|constitutional right]] to [[free speech]]. A chilling effect may be caused by legal actions such as the passing of a law, the decision of a court, or the threat of a lawsuit; any legal action that would cause people to hesitate to exercise a legitimate right (freedom of speech or otherwise) for fear of legal repercussions. When that fear is brought about by the threat of a [[libel]] lawsuit, it is called '''libel chill'''.<ref>Green, A. (2009, October 15). Banish the libel chill. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/oct/15/simon-singh-libel-laws-chiropractic</ref> A lawsuit initiated specifically for the purpose of creating a chilling effect may be called a [[Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation]], or more commonly called; a "[[SLAPP suit]]." |
In a legal context, a '''chilling effect''' is the inhibition or discouragement of the legitimate exercise of [[natural and legal rights]] by the threat of legal sanction.<ref>chilling effect. (n.d.). Retrieved October 19th, 2011, from http://law.yourdictionary.com/chilling-effect</ref> The right that is most often described as being suppressed by a chilling effect is the US [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|constitutional right]] to [[free speech]]. A chilling effect may be caused by legal actions such as the passing of a law, the decision of a court, or the threat of a lawsuit; any legal action that would cause people to hesitate to exercise a legitimate right (freedom of speech or otherwise) for fear of legal repercussions. When that fear is brought about by the threat of a [[libel]] lawsuit, it is called '''libel chill'''.<ref>Green, A. (2009, October 15). Banish the libel chill. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/oct/15/simon-singh-libel-laws-chiropractic</ref> A lawsuit initiated specifically for the purpose of creating a chilling effect may be called a [[Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation]], or more commonly called; a "[[SLAPP suit]]." |
||
Outside of the legal context, any [[coercion]] or threat of coercion (or other |
Outside of the legal context, in common usage any [[coercion]] or threat of coercion (or other unpleasantries) can have a chilling effect on a group of people regarding a specific behavior, and often can be statistically measured or be plainly observed. For example the news headline "''Flood insurance [price] spikes have chilling effect on some home sales''."<ref>October 15, 2013, WWL‑TV Eyewitness News Headline: [http://www.wwltv.com/news/Skyrocketing-flood-insurance-rates-has-chilling-effect-on-some-home-sales-227940191.html Flood insurance spikes have chilling effect on some home sales.] "Realtors say [price spikes are] already causing home sales to fall through when buyers realize they can’t afford the flood insurance." Retrieved Jan 26, 2014</ref> |
||
==Usage== |
==Usage== |
||
Revision as of 04:17, 27 January 2014
| Part of a series on |
| Censorship by country |
|---|
 |
| Countries |
| See also |
In a legal context, a chilling effect is the inhibition or discouragement of the legitimate exercise of natural and legal rights by the threat of legal sanction.[1] The right that is most often described as being suppressed by a chilling effect is the US constitutional right to free speech. A chilling effect may be caused by legal actions such as the passing of a law, the decision of a court, or the threat of a lawsuit; any legal action that would cause people to hesitate to exercise a legitimate right (freedom of speech or otherwise) for fear of legal repercussions. When that fear is brought about by the threat of a libel lawsuit, it is called libel chill.[2] A lawsuit initiated specifically for the purpose of creating a chilling effect may be called a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, or more commonly called; a "SLAPP suit."
Outside of the legal context, in common usage any coercion or threat of coercion (or other unpleasantries) can have a chilling effect on a group of people regarding a specific behavior, and often can be statistically measured or be plainly observed. For example the news headline "Flood insurance [price] spikes have chilling effect on some home sales."[3]
Usage
In United States and Canadian law, the term chilling effects refers to the stifling effect that vague or excessively broad laws may have on legitimate speech activity.
An example of the "chilling effect" in Canadian case law can be found in Iorfida v. MacIntyre where the constitutionality of a criminal law prohibiting the publication of literature depicting illicit drug use was challenged. The court found that the law had a "chilling effect" on legitimate forms of expression and could stifle political debate on issues such as the legalization of marijuana.[4] The court noted that it did not adopt the same "chilling effect" analysis used in American law but considered the chilling effect of the law as a part of its own analysis.[5]
Recognition that a law may allow for a chilling effect as a vehicle for political libel or vexatious litigation provides motivation to change such defamation laws, and therefore prevent censorship and the suppression of free speech.[citation needed]
History
The term chilling effect had been in use in the United States since as early as 1950.[6] The United States Supreme Court first refers to the "chilling effect" in the context of the United States Constitution in Wieman v. Updegraff in 1952.[7]
It, however, became further used as a legal term when William J. Brennan, a justice of the United States Supreme Court, used it in a judicial decision (Lamont v. Postmaster General) which overturned a law requiring a postal patron receiving "communist political propaganda"[8] to specifically authorize the delivery.[9]
The Lamont case, however, did not center around a law that explicitly stifles free speech. The "chilling effect" referred to at the time was a "deterrent effect" on freedom of expression—even when there is no law explicitly prohibiting it. However, in general, "chilling effect" is now often used in reference to laws or actions that do not explicitly prohibit legitimate speech, but that impose undue burdens.[9][failed verification]
See also
- Censorship
- Culture of fear
- Fear mongering
- Media transparency
- Prior restraint
- Strategic lawsuit against public participation
- Simon Singh, British author sued by chiropractors in a case widely cited[10][11][12][13] as an example of a chilling effect.
References
- ^ chilling effect. (n.d.). Retrieved October 19th, 2011, from http://law.yourdictionary.com/chilling-effect
- ^ Green, A. (2009, October 15). Banish the libel chill. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/oct/15/simon-singh-libel-laws-chiropractic
- ^ October 15, 2013, WWL‑TV Eyewitness News Headline: Flood insurance spikes have chilling effect on some home sales. "Realtors say [price spikes are] already causing home sales to fall through when buyers realize they can’t afford the flood insurance." Retrieved Jan 26, 2014
- ^ Iorfida v. MacIntyre, 1994 CanLII 7341 (ON SC)at para. 20, <http://canlii.ca/s/wwhi> retrieved on 2011-10-25
- ^ Iorfida v. MacIntyre, 1994 CanLII 7341 (ON SC) at para. 37, <http://canlii.ca/s/wwhi> retrieved on 2011-10-25
- ^ Freund, Paul A. "4 Vanderbilt Law Review 533, at 539 (1950–1951): The Supreme Court and Civil Liberties".
- ^ "The Chilling Effect in Constitutional Law". Columbia Law Review. 69 (5): 808–842. May 1969. JSTOR 1121147.
- ^ Safire, William (2005-07-20). "Safire Urges Federal Journalist Shield Law". Center For Individual Freedom. Retrieved 2008-06-18.
Justice Brennan reported having written a 1965 decision striking down a state's intrusion on civil liberty because of its "chilling effect upon the exercise of First Amendment rights..."
{{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=(help) - ^ a b "LAMONT V. POSTMASTER GENERAL, 381 U. S. 301 (1965)". Justia. Retrieved 2008-06-18.
- ^ Boseley, Sarah (15 April 2010). "Simon Singh libel case dropped". The Guardian.
- ^ Clarke, Roger (19 January 2013). "Simon Singh attacks "chilling effect of libel" at Union speech". Varsity.
- ^ "UK Libel Laws, Scientific Criticism, Chilling Effects, Bloggers And The Streisand Effect". Techdirt. 19 September 2009.
- ^ Eaton, George (15 April 2010). "British Chiropractic Association drops its case against science writer". New Statesman.
External links
- Chilling Effects Clearinghouse, containing many current examples of alleged chilling effects
- Terms associated with libel cases
- Cato Policy Analysis No. 270 Chilling The Internet? Lessons from FCC Regulation of Radio Broadcasting
- Libel Reform Campaign The Chilling Effect of English libel law
