# Chilling effect > Mediated Wiki article. Canonical URL: https://mediated.wiki/source/Chilling_effect > Markdown URL: https://mediated.wiki/source/Chilling_effect.md > Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect > Source revision: 1350451947 > License: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/) {{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}} A '''chilling effect''' is the phenomenon in which an individual, organization, or group is prevented from exercising their legal rights, leading to [self-censorship](/source/self-censorship) in the form of the restraint of information sharing or the abstinence from certain activities. This self-censorship is driven by the fear of potential repercussions and harm if actions are taken. In the absence of a legal context, the common use of [coercion](/source/coercion) or threats of coercion (along with other undesirable consequences) can exert 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,"{{cite web |date=October 15, 2013 |title=Flood insurance spikes have chilling effect on some home sales |url=http://www.wwltv.com/news/Skyrocketing-flood-insurance-rates-has-chilling-effect-on-some-home-sales-227940191.html |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 |work=WWL‑TV Eyewitness News |quote=Realtors say [price spikes are] already causing home sales to fall through when buyers realize they can't afford the flood insurance.}} 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."{{cite journal |last1=Cloven |first1=Denise H. |last2=Roloff |first2=Michael E. |year=1993 |title=The Chilling Effect of Aggressive Potential on The Expression of Complaints in Intimate Relationships |journal=Communication Monographs |volume=60 |issue=3 |pages=199–219 |doi=10.1080/03637759309376309 |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).}} == Law == In a legal context, a chilling effect is the inhibition or discouragement of the legitimate exercise of [rights](/source/rights) by the threat of legal sanction.chilling effect. (n.d.). Retrieved October 19, 2011, from http://law.yourdictionary.com/chilling-effect 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](/source/legal_threat); 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](/source/libel) lawsuit, it is called '''libel chill'''.{{cite web |last=Green |first=Allen |date=October 15, 2009 |title=Banish the libel chill |url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/oct/15/simon-singh-libel-laws-chiropractic |work=The Guardian}} A lawsuit initiated specifically for the purpose of creating a chilling effect may be called a [strategic lawsuit against public participation](/source/strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation) (SLAPP). "Chilling" in this context normally implies an undesirable slowing. ==History== In 1644 [John Milton](/source/John_Milton) expressed the chilling effect of censorship in ''[Areopagitica](/source/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.[John Milton](/source/John_Milton) (1644) [Areopagitica](/source/Areopagitica), edited by [George H. Sabine](/source/George_H._Sabine) (1951), page 29, [Appleton-Century-Crofts](/source/Appleton-Century-Crofts)}} The term ''chilling effect'' has been in use in the United States since as early as 1950.{{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.}} The United States Supreme Court first refers to the "chilling effect" in the context of the United States Constitution in ''[Wieman v. Updegraff](/source/Wieman_v._Updegraff)'' in 1952.{{cite journal|title=The Chilling Effect in Constitutional Law|journal=[Columbia Law Review](/source/Columbia_Law_Review)|volume=69|issue=5|date=May 1969|pages=808–842|jstor=1121147|doi=10.2307/1121147}} It, however, became further used as a legal term when [William J. Brennan](/source/William_J._Brennan), a [justice](/source/Associate_Justice_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States) of the [United States Supreme Court](/source/United_States_Supreme_Court), used it in a judicial decision (''[Lamont v. Postmaster General](/source/Lamont_v._Postmaster_General)'') which overturned a law requiring a postal patron receiving "communist political propaganda"{{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](/source/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...”}} to specifically authorize the delivery.{{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}} 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.{{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 " ==Usage== In United States and [Canadian law](/source/Canadian_law), the term ''chilling effects'' refers to the stifling effect that vague or excessively broad laws may have on legitimate speech activity.{{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}} However, the term is also now commonly used outside American legal [jargon](/source/jargon), such as the chilling effects of high prices or of [corrupt police](/source/corrupt_police), or of "anticipated aggressive repercussions" in, for example, personal relationships. A chilling effect is an effect that reduces, suppresses, discourages, delays, or infringes on a person's ability to freely express a view without fear on consequence. 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.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 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.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 In the United States, [Donald Trump's conflict with the media](/source/Donald_Trump's_conflict_with_the_media){{Cite web |last=Taormino |first=Ellessandra |date=2025-08-05 |title=Trump's Attacks on Press Freedom Escalate: NPR, PBS Funding Cuts Explained {{!}} ACLU |url=https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/trumps-attacks-on-press-freedom-escalate-npr-pbs-funding-cuts-explained |access-date=2025-10-03 |website=American Civil Liberties Union |language=en-US}} has been described as having a chilling effect.{{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](/source/The_Guardian) |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}} == International community == In the international community, chilling effects typically are used to refer to government or political censorship on democratic systems and actors, including journalists/media, academic institutions, and judicial functions.{{Cite web |title=Factsheet on Chilling Effect on Freedom of Expression: Regional Human Rights Courts Perspective |url=https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/publications/factsheet-on-chilling-effect-on-freedom-of-expression-regional-human-rights-courts-perspective/ |access-date=2025-10-03 |website=Global Freedom of Expression |language=en-US}} Chilling Effects in international law cases can be separated into "regulatory chill" or "chilling expressions" issues. The first refers to when a government or nation refrains from passing legislation or exercising their authority over their political territory in order to avoid repercussions from international actors and/or foreign investors.{{Cite journal |last=Ankersmit |first=Laurens |date=2020 |title=Regulatory autonomy and regulatory chill in Opinion 1/17 |url=https://journals.uclpress.co.uk/ewlr/article/pubid/EWLR-4-7/ |journal=Europe and the World: A law review |language=en |volume=4 |issue=1 |doi=10.14324/111.444.ewlj.2020.25 |issn=2399-2875}} Threats of sanctioning or pulling out from investment, or dismantling trade deals are some of the ways regulatory chill can be achieved. In 2011, the Australia government passed a law that required all tobacco products to be sold in plain packaging in an effort to reduce smoking by making cigarette packs less appealing. In November of that year, tobacco company Phillips Morris Asia sued Australia on the basis that the law harmed their business and broke [trade agreement](/source/trade_agreement) rules between Hong Kong and Australia. This type of lawsuit is known as [investment arbitration](/source/Investor%E2%80%93state_dispute_settlement). At the same time, the New Zealand government was preparing to pass similar legislation but delayed it for six and a half years while waiting for the lawsuit to conclude, in fear it would also get sued by tobacco companies for similar reasoning.{{Cite journal |last=Tienhaara |first=Kyla |date=2017-12-22 |title=Regulatory Chill in a Warming World: The Threat to Climate Policy Posed by Investor-State Dispute Settlement |url=https://doi.org/10.1017/s2047102517000309 |journal=Transnational Environmental Law |volume=7 |issue=2 |pages=229–250 |doi=10.1017/s2047102517000309 |issn=2047-1025}} In 2015, Australia won the case when the [Permanent Court of Arbitration](/source/Permanent_Court_of_Arbitration) concluded that Phillip Morris had performed an “abuse of rights” and ordered the company to assume the cost of the trial. Following this verdict, New Zealand moved forward with their own packaging legislation.{{Cite web |title=Investment tribunal dismisses Philip Morris Asia's challenge to Australia's plain packaging {{!}} WHO FCTC |url=https://extranet.who.int/fctcapps/fctcapps/fctc/kh/legalchallenges/news/investment-tribunal-dismisses-philip-morris-asias-challenge |access-date=2025-10-03 |website=extranet.who.int}} In Poland, a set of disciplinary rules allowed the government to question or punish judges for their court decisions or for requesting guidance from the Court of Justice of the European Union. This system was found to violate EU law in the 2021 CJEU ruling Commission v Poland (C-791/19).{{Cite web|title=CJEU Case C-791/19 / Judgment {{!}} European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights|url=https://fra.europa.eu/en/caselaw-reference/cjeu-case-c-79119-judgment|website=fra.europa.eu|date=2022-03-01|access-date=2025-11-30|language=en}}{{Cite web|title=Poland's Interrupted Transformation {{!}} IWM WEBSITE|url=https://www.iwm.at/europes-futures/publication/polands-interrupted-transformation|website=www.iwm.at|access-date=2025-11-30}} The rules created a situation of pressure on judges to avoid actions that might lead to disciplinary steps, which legal scholars describe as a chilling effect.{{Cite journal|title=Silencing journalists in matters of public interest: Journalists and editors assessments of the impact of SLAPPs on journalism|url=https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849231210695|journal=Journalism|date=2024-12-01|issn=1464-8849|pages=2485–2503|volume=25|issue=12|doi=10.1177/14648849231210695|language=EN|first=Tanja|last=Kerševan|first2=Melita|last2=Poler}} The risk of penalties, even without direct punishment, limited the independence of the judiciary and its authority.{{Citation|title=Upholding the rule of law in the EU|url=https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429197727-17|publisher=Routledge|work=Human Rights Law and Evidence-Based Policy|date=2019-12-06|access-date=2025-11-30|isbn=978-0-429-19772-7|pages=219–236|first=Laurent|last=Pech|first2=Joelle|last2=Grogan}} === Case studies === In 1999, Costa Rican journalist [Mauricio Herrera-Ulloa](/source/Mauricio_Herrera_Ulloa) was found guilty on four charges of defamation for a series of seven stories he published exposing a corruption scandal of Costa Rican Ambassador Felix Przedborski.{{Cite web |title=Herrera-Ulloa v. Costa Rica |url=https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/herrera-ulloa-v-costa-rica/ |access-date=2025-10-03 |website=Global Freedom of Expression |language=en-US}} In response, Przedborski filed criminal defamation and civil lawsuits against Herrera-Ulloa and ''La Nación'', and in 1999, Herrera-Ulloa was convicted, ordered to pay damages, to publish parts of the ruling after taking down the original stories, and his name was also entered into the record of convicted felons. In 2001, Herrera-Ulloa and ''La Nación’s'' publisher at the time,  Fernán Vargas Rohrmoser appealed to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights which found the court violated the journalist's right to freedom of expression. The commission urged Costa Rica to overturn the convictions, erase the criminal record, and restore the removed online content but when the country failed to comply, the case was brought before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) in 2003 and eventually overturned in 2004.{{Cite web |title=Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica |url=https://www.justiceinitiative.org/litigation/herrera-ulloa-v-costa-rica |access-date=2025-10-03 |website=www.justiceinitiative.org |language=en}} Regarding [Ömer Faruk Gergerlioğlu](/source/%C3%96mer_Faruk_Gergerlio%C4%9Flu)'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.{{Cite web |title=OHCHR | Press briefing notes on Turkey |url=https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=26934&LangID=E&s=09}} === Chilling effects on Wikipedia users === [Edward Snowden](/source/Edward_Snowden) disclosed in 2013 that the US government's [Upstream](/source/Upstream_collection) program was collecting data on people reading Wikipedia articles. This revelation had significant impact on the [self-censorship](/source/self-censorship) of the readers, as shown by the fact that there were substantially fewer views for articles related to terrorism and security.{{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}} The court case ''[Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA](/source/Wikimedia_Foundation_v._NSA)'' has since followed.{{cite web|title=Wikimedia v. NSA: Challenge to Mass Surveillance Under the FISA Amendments Act|url=https://www.aclu.org/national-security/wikimedia-v-nsa|website=aclu.org|publisher=[American Civil Liberties Union](/source/American_Civil_Liberties_Union)|access-date=March 10, 2015|archive-date=March 28, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150328173416/https://www.aclu.org/national-securty/wikimedia-v-nsa|url-status=live}}{{cite web|url=https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/03/10/wikimedia-v-nsa/|title=Wikimedia v. NSA: Wikimedia Foundation files suit against the NSA to challenge Upstream mass surveillance|last=Paulson|first=Michelle|date=10 March 2015|publisher=[Wikimedia Foundation](/source/Wikimedia_Foundation)|access-date=10 March 2015|archive-date=March 10, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150310110850/https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/03/10/wikimedia-v-nsa/|url-status=live}}{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/10/opinion/stop-spying-on-wikipedia-users.html?_r=0 |title=Stop Spying on Wikipedia Users |last1=Wales |first1=Jimmy |last2=Tretikov |first2=Lila |newspaper=New York Times |date=2015-03-10 |access-date=10 March 2015 |archive-date=August 13, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170813031306/https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/10/opinion/stop-spying-on-wikipedia-users.html?_r=0 |url-status=live }} ===Chilling effect of employer retaliation=== Although speech may be constitutionally protected from being legally sanctioned by the government, employers in the U.S., for example, are generally free to fire employees who express opinions they disagree with or find offensive.{{cite news| url=https://apnews.com/article/charlie-kirk-workplace-speech-firing-29717a8612ccedebabc7cba29e7ef627| author=CATHY BUSSEWITZ and WYATTE GRANTHAM-PHILIPS| title=Workers commenting on Kirk's death learn the limits of free speech in and out of their jobs| publisher=Associated Press| date=September 16, 2025}} The threat of the loss of employment as a consequence of expressing an opinion can have a chilling effect on speech, even on speech that occurs outside the workplace.{{cite news| url=https://www.axios.com/2025/09/15/charlie-kirks-death-celebration-consquences| author= Josephine Walker| title=Thousands flagged online for cheering Charlie Kirk's death| publisher=Axios| date=September 15, 2025}}{{cite news| url=https://www.businessinsider.com/jd-vance-charlie-kirk-death-celebration-call-employers-2025-9| author=Bryan Metzger| title=JD Vance says if you see someone celebrating Charlie Kirk's death, tell their employer| publisher=Business Insider| date=Sep 16, 2025}} ==See also== * [Censorship](/source/Censorship) * [Culture of fear](/source/Culture_of_fear) * [Cancel culture](/source/Cancel_culture) * [Democratic backsliding](/source/Democratic_backsliding) * [Fear mongering](/source/Fear_mongering) * [Judicial misconduct](/source/Judicial_misconduct) * [Lawfare](/source/Lawfare) * [Malicious prosecution](/source/Malicious_prosecution) * [Media transparency](/source/Media_transparency) * [Opinion corridor](/source/Opinion_corridor) * [Paper terrorism](/source/Paper_terrorism) * [Political prisoner](/source/Political_prisoner) * [Prior restraint](/source/Prior_restraint) * [Vexatious litigation](/source/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 --- Adapted from the Wikipedia article [Chilling effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect) by Wikipedia contributors ([contributor history](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect?action=history)). Available under [Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/). Changes may have been made.