Chilling effect

In a legal context, a chilling effect is the inhibition or discouragement of the legitimate exercise of rights by the threat of legal sanction. 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. 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. ==History==

In 1644 John Milton expressed the chilling effect of censorship in Areopagitica: The term chilling effect has been in use in the United States since as early as 1950. ==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. However, the term is also now commonly used outside American legal jargon, such as the chilling effects of high prices 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. In the United States, Donald Trump's conflict with the media has been described as having a chilling effect. == 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. 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. 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 rules between Hong Kong and Australia. This type of lawsuit is known as investment arbitration. In 2015, Australia won the case when the 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. 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). 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. The risk of penalties, even without direct punishment, limited the independence of the judiciary and its authority. Case studies In 1999, Costa Rican journalist 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. 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. 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. Chilling effects on Wikipedia users Edward Snowden disclosed in 2013 that the US government's 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. The court case Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA has since followed. 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. 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. ==See also==