Talk:Chilling effect/Archive 1

message: The section points to Lamont v. Postmaster General as an adoption of the term by the U.S. Supreme Court, but this is misleading. While there is no doubt that the case is about chilling effects, I do not see the actual term "chilling effects" used anywhere in the decision. Moreover, the article currently attributes the "decision" to Justice Brennan, even though Brennan's opinion was only a concurrence. I would recommend deleting the paragraphs about Lamont entirely — they might make sense in a more complete article (and when, you know, made to be accurate), but are awkward and misleading as is. Threepwolfe (talk) 03:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: History section needs revision

message: :"The landmark California Supreme Court case Varian v. Delfino is a classic example of this chilling effect."
and the commercial link
:"*Be careful who you SLAPP - A book about chilling free speech on the Internet."
I feel that the SLAPP link is enough on this subject.  The rest is a PR campaign by people involved in the case. kmccoy (talk) 07:35, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed the following text

message: The article is written as though the First Amendment applies everywhere. Could someone recast it? Estrellador* 14:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a small change to try and help it along a bit in this direction. --Lisa 00:44, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a US-law term. Is there any application or use of this term anywhere else in any other non-US area of law?  No.  Then, it does not need "globalize". Not every concept is global!  I have added a clarifying comment to the lede to explain that it is a US-specific term.  If and when the term becomes adopted in areas outside the US then we can "globalize" the article entry. Until then we need only explain the use of the term. I would hope we would do the same for other terms of common interest but jurisdictional specificity! --Lquilter 13:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: US-centricism

message: I feel like I'm stating the obvious here, but the article itself professes ignorance, and no-one else has mentioned it here.  It seems to me that this is merely the misunderstanding of a common, older cliche.  While it may now have become a proper term in common usage (although I haven't seen it anywhere else), it seems very likely that it would have originated from one or a few people's misunderstanding of a phrase such as, "this would have a chilling effect on free speech."  In the previously standard usage, the meaning of this phrase would be that the effect on free speech would be "chilling" (please note the small "c"), in as much as it would be terrifying enough to "chill one to the bones", or to make one shiver involuntarily with fear.  If this were a proper term, I would expect it to be named after an entity such as a person, place, or organisation, and therefore also to be capitalised.  I'd like to point out that the stated example of usage in the article does not use capitalisation (viz. "Chilling Effect"), increasing the probablilty that this is a simple misunderstanding rather than a legitimate term. --Nezuji 07:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are stating the obvious. :); I don't think anybody is seriously suggesting that there is a guy "Chilling", or indeed anything other than the ultimate derivation. But the term I think can be used in caps to refer to the specific usage it has gained over the years. 9/11 may have had a chilling effect on free speech, but the attacks alone could not exercise a Chilling Effect. Anyway, YMMV and IANAL. Sdedeo (tips) 07:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Origin of the term

message: I haven't made this edit myself, as my knowlage on the subject is limited, but I do know that the Chilling Effect is part of common law in the UK. As I study media law, we have touched upon the subject but only briefly. If no-one else makes the edit I will do some research and update the article in future. Monkeymox (talk) 11:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please take the liberty to add what you know. ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: United Kingdom

message: I think it is necessary for this article to belong in a category.  Because of its relationship to law, it has been categorize as such.  It may be possible to find a more appropriate category, if you do please change it. ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Category

message: This term could describe other things too. For example obscenity which censors erotic works such as writings or drawings of a pornographic nature, or laws outlawing sexual depictions of fictional characters. Tyciol (talk) 07:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that the term is used broadly, but you'd have to find a published reliable source that asserts this.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Libel only?

message: About  this, it seems to imply that a chilling effect is solely a lawsuit-oriented issue, and I'm not sure that chilling effect is limited to lawsuits.  "If I express my real views on ______ political issue, while are different from my employer's, then I might lose my job" also has a chilling effect.  "If I publish my results, I'll be villified and never get funding again" also has a chilling effect.  Consider, e.g., the way these sources use it:      WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  SLAPP 

message: I see kmccoy removed a specific court case because he felt it was just propaganda, but I do feel the article needs examples to clarify the subject. I'm not an idiot, but after reading the article, I'm still not sure what it means (or how it just plain differs from censorship).  I suggest simple hypothetical examples that will show what speech by whom is being chilled (by someone else?).  --Yoda of Borg (talk) 09:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples needed. 

message: As sugested above I plan to do some editing to this article for a course that I'm taking at the University of Toronto.  I'd like to add some of the missing citations, include some examples either hypothetical or from leading cases in the area, and maybe add some additional explanation of the concept. If anyone has additional suggestions, I'm happy to hear them. Emilymarian (talk) 02:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intention to edit 

message: I would suggest that the phrase chilling effect in law has also been used with regard to executive action. If you write an email or a letter and find aggressive police on your doorstep, you are less likely to exercise your first amendment rights. If a judge misuses his control of the courtroom to jail people, this also can have a chilling effect. The article, as currently written, focuses only on the legislative arena at present. That's just not consistent with general usage which concerns abuse emanating from any branch of government at any level. TMLutas (talk) 06:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  non-legislative chilling effects 

message: I've noticed that the US's system of law is the primary basis of this article, necessitating the change to the Globalize tag. Although it has been previously argued that "Chilling Effects" are a US term, the concept is prevalent in other legal systems and this article ought to at least cursorily address this concept in an international perspective. Dtlyng (talk) 02:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Constitution 

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the move request was: page moved. Unanimous consensus after eight days of listing.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
It looks like we need a history merge for Talk:Chilling effect (disambiguation) and Talk:Chilling effect so that this talk page can be matched up with its old article.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move