A
chilling effect is a term in law and communication which describes a situation where speech or conduct is suppressed by fear of penalization at the interests of an individual or group. It may prompt
self-censorship and therefore hamper
free speech. Since many attacks rely on
libel law, the term
libel chill is also often used. This is the same concept as a
Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, or "SLAPP" suit.
Usage
In
United States and
Canadian law, the term
chilling effects refers to the stifling attribute that vague or overbroad laws may have on legitimate speech activity. Recognition of a law that may permit a loophole for such
chilling effect as a vehicle for
political libel or
vexatious litigation provides a prompt to allow changes to such
defamation laws, and therefore prevent the suppression of free speech and censorship.
History
The term
chilling effect had been in use in the United States since as early as 1950. 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 required a postal patron receiving "communist political propaganda" to specifically authorize the delivery.
The
Lamont case however, did not center around a law that explicitly stifles free speech. A "chilling effect" referred to at the time 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.
See also
