In a legal context, a chilling effect is the term used to describe the inhibition or discouragement of the legitimate exercise of a constitutional right by the threat of legal sanction.[1] The right that is most often described as being supressed by a chilling effect is the 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 their right to free speech for fear of the legal consequences. When that fear is brought about by the threat of a libel lawsuit, it is called libel chill.[2] A lawsuit that is started specifically for the purpose of creating a chilling effect may be called a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, or "SLAPP" suit.
Contents |
In United States and Canadian law, the term chilling effects refers to the stifling effect that vague or overbroad 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. [3] 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.[4]
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 the suppression of free speech and censorship.
The term chilling effect had been in use in the United States since as early as 1950.[5] 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"[6] to specifically authorize the delivery.[7]
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.[7]