Chilling effect
The "chilling effect" refers to the indirect suppression of protected speech caused by certain laws or government policies that create a fear of legal repercussions. This concept is particularly relevant in the context of the First Amendment in the United States, which guarantees freedom of speech. Courts have noted that even laws intended for legitimate purposes can inadvertently discourage individuals from expressing themselves if they are perceived as threatening or vague. For instance, vague regulations can lead to uncertainty about what speech is permissible, causing individuals to self-censor to avoid potential penalties.
The overbreadth doctrine is closely related, allowing legal challenges to statutes that are overly inclusive, thereby potentially punishing protected speech alongside unprotected speech. Landmark cases, such as Smith v. Goguen and Houston v. Hill, illustrate how the Supreme Court has invalidated laws that risk chilling protected expression due to their vagueness or breadth. In contemporary society, the phenomenon of cancel culture exemplifies the chilling effect, as individuals often hesitate to voice opinions in various settings out of fear of social or professional backlash. This self-censorship highlights the ongoing relevance of the chilling effect in discussions about free speech and its boundaries in modern discourse.
On this Page
Chilling effect
Description: Indirect negative effect on protected speech resulting from certain laws or government policies
Relevant amendment: First
Significance: Otherwise unobjectionable laws and policies are sometimes invalidated by United States (US) courts because they might “chill,” or discourage speech protected by the First Amendment
The US Supreme Court has often repeated that freedom of speech needs “breathing room.” Laws that serve appropriate ends may nevertheless creep so close to a regulation of protected speech that they discourage people from speaking for fear of adverse legal consequences. Therefore, concern about the chilling effects on speech surfaces in various First Amendment contexts. For example, the Court has frequently overturned vague regulations of speech which—if written more clearly—would probably have survived constitutional challenge. Vague speech regulations have an “in terrorem” effect. Because they do not distinguish crisply between permissible and impermissible speech, such regulations risk deterring or chilling speech protected by the First Amendment, as well as speech that the government might otherwise be free to limit. Fearful of exposing themselves to government sanction, individuals might refrain from engaging in speech that falls within the First Amendment’s umbrella of protection. The Court routinely overturns such chillingly vague statutes to preserve First Amendment values. In Smith v. Goguen (1974), for example, the Court held unconstitutional a statute making it a criminal offense to treat the US flag “contemptuously.” According to the Court, the statute was impermissibly vague, since what is “contemptuous to one man may be a work of art to another.”
A concern for possible chilling effects on protected speech also lies at the core of the overbreadth doctrine. An overbroad statute is designed to restrict or punish speech that is not constitutionally protected. As it is drafted, however, an overbroad statute reaches unprotected speech and speech that the First Amendment guards. The overbreadth doctrine allows individuals to complain of a statute’s overreaching even if the speech of these individuals is otherwise unprotected. The doctrine essentially allows such individuals to champion the cause of unnamed speakers whose protected speech might be subject to sanction under an overly broad statute. For example, in Houston v. Hill (1987), the Supreme Court invalidated as substantially overbroad a Houston, Texas, ordinance making it a crime to “assault, strike or in any manner oppose, molest, abuse or interrupt any policeman in the execution of his duty.” The Court acknowledged that some speech directed against police officers might be punished. However, it ruled that the statute was too broad since “the First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers.” By overreaching, therefore, the local ordinance would inevitably have the effect of stifling such protected criticism. As such, the ordinance was overturned as substantially overbroad.
A modern example of the implications of a chilling effect can be seen in the rise of cancel culture, a phenomenon where individuals or groups are ostracized or boycotted for their views or actions. This has led to a fear of backlash and self-censorship. Individuals may refrain from sharing their opinions publicly in schools, workplaces, and on the Internet due to fear of social, economic, or political consequences. Because people may limit their freedom of speech due to negative repercussions or “being canceled,” a chilling effect occurs.
Bibliography
Grigorov, Gavriil. "Opinion - America Has a Free Speech Problem." The New York Times, 18 Mar. 2022, www.nytimes.com/2022/03/18/opinion/cancel-culture-free-speech-poll.html. Accessed 24 Aug. 2024.
Hudson, David L. "Chilling Effect Overview." The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, www.thefire.org/research-learn/chilling-effect-overview. Accessed 24 Aug. 2024.
"3 Free Speech Organizations Fighting Cancel Culture." Stand Together, standtogether.org/stories/free-speech/meet-3-free-speech-organizations-fighting-cancel-culture. Accessed 24 Aug. 2024.