View source for Chilling effect

{{Short description|Discouragement of exercising rights by threats of legal sanctions}}
{{Other uses|Chilling effect (disambiguation)}}
{{distinguish|Chilling Effects}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=August 2017}}
{{Censorship sidebar}}
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 19, 2011, from http://law.yourdictionary.com/chilling-effect</ref> A chilling effect may be caused by legal actions such as the passing of a law, the decision of a court, or the [[legal threat|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>{{cite web|last=Green|first= Allen|date = October 15, 2009|title= Banish the libel chill|work= The Guardian|url = https://www.theguardian.com/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]] (SLAPP).

"Chilling" in this context normally implies an undesirable slowing. Outside 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 name="Price Spikes">{{cite web|date=October 15, 2013|work= WWL‑TV Eyewitness News |url = http://www.wwltv.com/news/Skyrocketing-flood-insurance-rates-has-chilling-effect-on-some-home-sales-227940191.html|title =  Flood insurance spikes have chilling effect on some home sales|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131119055232/http://www.wwltv.com/news/Skyrocketing-flood-insurance-rates-has-chilling-effect-on-some-home-sales-227940191.html |archive-date=November 19, 2013 |quote=Realtors say [price spikes are] already causing home sales to fall through when buyers realize they can't afford the flood insurance.}}</ref> and the abstract title of a two-part survey of 160 college students involved in dating relationships: "The chilling effect of aggressive potential on the expression of complaints in intimate relationships."<ref name="Dating-1993">{{cite journal| journal = Communication Monographs|volume= 60|issue =3|year= 1993 |first1= Denise H. |last1=Cloven |first2= Michael E.|last2= Roloff | pages= 199–219 |title=The Chilling Effect of Aggressive Potential on The Expression of Complaints in Intimate Relationships |quote =A two-part survey of 160 college students involved in dating relationships ... . This chilling effect was greater when individuals who generally feared conflict anticipated aggressive repercussions (p < .001), and when people anticipated symbolic aggression from relationally independent partners (p < .05).|doi= 10.1080/03637759309376309}}</ref>

==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.<ref>{{Cite report|title=Striking a Balance: Hate Speech, Freedom of Expression and Non-discrimination|year=1992|location=Canada|doi=10.1163/2210-7975_hrd-2210-0079}}</ref>

However, the term is also now commonly used outside American legal [[jargon]], such as the chilling effects of high prices<ref name="Price Spikes" /> or of [[corrupt police]], or of "anticipated aggressive repercussions" (in say, personal relationships<ref name="Dating-1993" />).

A chilling effect is an effect that reduces, suppresses, discourages, delays, or otherwise retards reporting concerns of any kind.

An example of the "chilling effect" in Canadian case law can be found in ''Iorfida v. MacIntyre'' in which a party challenged the constitutionality of a criminal law prohibiting the publication of literature depicting illicit drug use. 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.<ref>Iorfida v. MacIntyre, 1994 CanLII 7341 (ON SC)at para. 20, <{{cite web |url=http://canlii.ca/s/wwhi |title=CanLII - 1994 CanLII 7341 (ON SC) |access-date=2011-10-25 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://archive.today/20120713212406/http://canlii.ca/s/wwhi |archive-date=July 13, 2012 |df=mdy-all }}> retrieved on 2011-10-25</ref> 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.<ref>Iorfida v. MacIntyre, 1994 CanLII 7341 (ON SC) at para. 37, <{{cite web |url=http://canlii.ca/s/wwhi |title=CanLII - 1994 CanLII 7341 (ON SC) |access-date=2011-10-25 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://archive.today/20120713212406/http://canlii.ca/s/wwhi |archive-date=July 13, 2012 |df=mdy-all }}> retrieved on 2011-10-25</ref>
<!-- Please expand by adding the usage in other countries -->

Regarding [[Ömer Faruk Gergerlioğlu]]'s case in Turkey, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) said that Turkey's mis-use of counter-terrorism measures can have a chilling effect on the enjoyment of fundamental freedoms and human rights.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=26934&LangID=E&s=09|title = OHCHR &#124; Press briefing notes on Turkey}}</ref>

[[Donald Trump's conflict with the media]] has been described as having a chilling effect.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Falkenberg |first=Kai |author-link=Kai Falkenberg |date=28 Apr 2025 |title=The US used to be the gold standard for press freedom. Not any more |url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/apr/28/press-freedom-us-trump |work=[[The Guardian]] |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}</ref>

==History==

In 1644 [[John Milton]] expressed the chilling effect of censorship in ''[[Areopagitica]]'':

{{quote|For to distrust the judgement and the honesty of one who hath but a common repute in learning and never yet offended, as not to count him fit to print his mind without a tutor or examiner, lest he should drop a schism or something of corruption, is the greatest displeasure and indignity to a free and knowing spirit that can be put upon him.<ref>[[John Milton]] (1644) [[Areopagitica]], edited by [[George H. Sabine]] (1951), page 29, [[Appleton-Century-Crofts]]</ref>}}

The term ''chilling effect'' has been in use in the United States since as early as 1950.<ref>{{cite web
|url= http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/vanlr4&id=547&collection=journals
|title= 4 Vanderbilt Law Review 533, at 539 (1950–1951): The Supreme Court and Civil Liberties
|last= Freund
|first= Paul A.
}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite journal|title=The Chilling Effect in Constitutional Law|journal=[[Columbia Law Review]]|volume=69|issue=5|date=May 1969|pages=808–842|jstor=1121147|doi=10.2307/1121147}}</ref>

It, however, became further used as a legal term when [[William J. Brennan]], a [[Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States|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"<ref>{{cite web
|url= http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/guest_commentary/saffire-shield-law.htm
|title= Safire Urges Federal Journalist Shield Law
|access-date= 2008-06-18
|last= Safire
|first= William
|date= July 20, 2005
|publisher= [[Center For Individual Freedom]]
|quote= 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...”
}}</ref> to specifically authorize the delivery.<ref name=lamont>{{cite web
|url= http://supreme.justia.com/us/381/301/
|title= LAMONT V. POSTMASTER GENERAL, 381 U. S. 301 (1965)
|access-date= 2008-06-18
|publisher= Justia
}}</ref>

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, the term "chilling effect" is also used in reference to laws or actions that may not explicitly prohibit legitimate speech, but rather impose undue burden on speech.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Rissman |first1=Joshua |title=Put it on Ice: Chilling Free Speech at National Conventions |journal=Minnesota Journal of Law & Inequality |date=3 February 2017 |volume=27 |issue=2 |pages=413 |url=https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/lawineq/vol27/iss2/4 |issn=0737-089X}} "A "chilling effect" describes a situation in which speech or conduct is inhibited or discouraged by fear of penalization, prompting self-censorship and therefore hampering free speech. 3 A law or police action need not explicitly prohibit legitimate speech to create a chilling effect; the actions of the government must merely pose an undue burden and deterrent effect on freedom of expression. 4 "</ref>

=== Chilling effects on Wikipedia users ===

[[Edward Snowden]] disclosed in 2013 that the US government's [[Upstream collection|Upstream]] program was collecting data on people reading Wikipedia articles. This revelation had significant impact on the [[self-censorship]] of the readers, as shown by the fact that there were substantially fewer views for articles related to terrorism and security.<ref>{{Cite journal| doi = 10.15779/z38ss13| last = Penney| first = Jonathon W.| title = Chilling Effects: Online Surveillance and Wikipedia Use| journal = Berkeley Technology Law Journal | access-date = 2019-08-20| date = 2016| url = https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/btlj/vol31/iss1/5}}</ref> The court case ''[[Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA]]'' has since followed.

==See also==
* [[Censorship]]
* [[Culture of fear]]
* [[Cancel culture]]
* [[Democratic backsliding]]
* [[Fear mongering]]
* [[Judicial misconduct]]
* [[Lawfare]]
* [[Malicious prosecution]]
* [[Media transparency]]
* [[Opinion corridor]]
* [[Paper terrorism]]
* [[Political prisoner]]
* [[Prior restraint]]
* [[Self-censorship]]
* [[Strategic lawsuit against public participation]]
* [[Vexatious litigation]]

==References==

{{Reflist|30em}}

==Further reading==
* Bedi, Suneal. [https://jolt.law.harvard.edu/assets/articlePDFs/v35/Bedi-The-Myth-of-the-Chilling-Effect.pdf "The Myth of the Chilling Effect."] ''Harvard Journal of Law and Technology'', vol. 35, no. 1 (Fall 2021), pp. 267-307. 
* [https://web.archive.org/web/19970607095110/http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-270.html Cato Policy Analysis No. 270] Chilling The Internet? Lessons from FCC Regulation of Radio Broadcasting
* [http://www.libelreform.org Libel Reform Campaign] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210302160310/http://www.libelreform.org/ |date=March 2, 2021 }} The Chilling Effect of English libel law
* Penney, Jonathon W. [https://minnesotalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/6-Penney_Web.pdf "Understanding Chilling Effects."] ''Minnesota Law Review'', vol. 106, no. 3 (2022), pp. 1451-1530.

==External links==
* [https://lumendatabase.org Lumen], containing many current examples of alleged chilling effects
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20050830085000/http://www.hfac.uh.edu/comm/media_libel/libel/definition.html Terms associated with libel cases]
{{Law}}
{{Miscarriage of justice}}
{{authority control}}

[[Category:Censorship]]
[[Category:Freedom of expression]]
[[Category:American legal terminology]]