Chilling effect

{{law}}
A '''chilling effect''' describes a situation in which rights, such as [[free speech]], are threatened by the possible negative results of exercising these rights.  The effect is to silence criticism and freedom of expression, even in cases where criticism is perfectly valid.

An example of a chilling effect can be seen in the libel law of [[England]], in which the threat of a libel suit — a very costly process to defend against — discourages people from writing what they otherwise consider to be accurate and morally defensible work.<ref>[http://www.libelreform.org/ The Libel Reform campaign's overview of English libel law.]</ref>  Chilling effects are also seen in situations where people or groups have sufficient power to make it difficult for others to express their opinions.

==Muhammed cartoons==
The reaction to the [[Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons | Danish cartoons]] portraying [[Muhammad]] led most mainstream media to avoid reprinting the cartoons for fear of offending [[Muslims]]. Comedy Central went so far as to censor the appearance of Muhammad in episodes of ''[[South Park]]'' — perhaps forgetting that the same series regularly features [[Jesus]], and Islam frowns upon any of the [[prophets]] being depicted. Indeed, orthodox Islam forbids images of any animate thing.<ref>[http://www.islamicacademy.org/html/Articles/English/Picutres_in_Islam.htm An Islamic view on images of animate things]</ref> The same effect has led to writers struggling to find publishers for books that are critical of Islam, or even just those that don't portray Muhammad and friends in the way they'd see him. The book ''Jewel of Medina'' was scheduled for publication by Random House, but was cancelled for fear that the book would offend Muslims.<ref>[http://archive.is/XuZo Book on Prophet Muhammad's wife dropped] (August 07, 2008) ''NDTV'' (archived from 4 Sep 2012 11:05:10 UTC).</ref><ref>''The Jewel of Medina: A Novel'' by Sherry Jones (2008) Beaufort Books. ISBN 0825305187.</ref>

==Libel==
Making it dangerous for people to offer criticism makes it easier for bad or negative actions and ideas to persist. In the case of the Danish cartoons, the media provided preferential treatment to Muslim religious sensibilities, which is unfair to other religions and makes it difficult to discuss and debate ideas that really do need to be examined. English libel law, with its low [[Burden of proof|burdens of proof]] for claimants and high cost of defending a case, is claimed to prevent [[journalist]]s and even [[scientists]] from publishing their work for fear of being sued.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/05/26/british-lawmaker-propose-reform-libel-laws-criticized-curtailing-free-speech/ British lawmaker propose bill to reform libel laws, criticized for curtailing free speech]</ref> 

In 2008, British science writer [[Simon Singh]] wrote a column in which he accused the British Chiropractic Association (BCA) of pushing bogus treatments. This was demonstrably true, given that they did indeed make physically impossible claims, yet he found himself engaged in a case that could have cost him millions to defend. The case was eventually dropped by the BCA, but not before Singh had run-up costs of an estimated £100,000, not including the personal time lost.<ref>[http://svetlana14s.narod.ru/Simon_Singhs_silenced_paper.html Beware the spinal trap] The original article was withdrawn, so this is a cached copy</ref> Such sums are beyond the resources of many writers, meaning that small newspapers and independent bloggers (and wiki editors) would have to either remove their work or risk legal proceedings that could lead to financial [[Armageddon]]. 

The Singh case is particularly relevant given that scientifically he was completely correct, yet the law was used in an attempt to silence him. This is a dangerous situation in which the law is being used to try to decide scientific fact.

==Software patents==
The practice of allowing [[patent]]s for software is controversial, given that separate software products often have to use similar approaches, or protocols, to be interoperable with the products of competitors. Patents, unlike trademarks, do not have to be defended. One could allow someone to knowingly infringe a patent for many years before finally coming forward to demand payment or launch a legal case. The sheer difficulty in knowing whether or not patents are being infringed acts as a barrier against software development, and has, in the form of [[FUD]], been used to dissuade companies from adopting [[open source]] products. The tactic is to claim that open source products (or a specific product) violates patents, yet not disclose the patents in question. Because large corporations tend to have extensive portfolios of patents it can be difficult to determine which ones are being violated, so some adopters may find it less risky to simply avoid the products.<ref>[http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/05/28/100033867/index.htm Microsoft takes on the free world]</ref>

The chilling effect here is twofold. Developers are dissuaded from contributing to open source products for fear that they may inadvertently violate a patent, and adopters are pushed to proprietary products which may themselves violate patents, but at least they may be indemnified against this risk by the publishers.

==The Chicks==
[[File:Dixie Chicks in Austin, Texas.jpg|thumb|right|165px|The Chicks in 2006]]
In 2003, Natalie Maines, a member of the country music group Dixie Chicks (now the Chicks), commented negatively on the [[Iraq War|war in Iraq]], and expressed shame that then-President [[George W. Bush]] is from the band's home state of [[Texas]].<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20071114015029/http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07%2F02%2F15%2F1528222 "Shut Up and Sing": Dixie Chicks’ Big Grammy Win Caps Comeback From Backlash Over Anti-War Stance]. Archived from ''Democracy Now'', 15 February 2007.</ref>

This resulted in [[moral panic]] among those most likely to listen to country music, and the band was subject to [[boycott]]s, with people burning their Dixie Chicks music collections in a scene reminiscent of both the novel ''[[Fahrenheit 451]]'' and [[The Beatles]] record burnings spurred by [[John Lennon]]'s "more popular than Jesus" remarks, as well as the customary death threats. Immense public pressure forced expressions of regret, and the overall criticism seemed to be based on the notion that it was [[Conservative correctness|unpatriotic not to support]] the ([[Republican]]) president, which is dangerous in that it places the president above criticism.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/2972043.stm Dixie Chicks 'get death threats']</ref>

Although this particular variant does not impose legal threats, the possibility of a ruined career and life would certainly discourage some from speaking out.

==External links==
* [https://lumendatabase.org/ Lumen] (formerly Chilling Effects Clearinghouse): A site that "collects and analyzes legal complaints and requests for removal of online materials, helping Internet users to know their rights and understand the law."

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Law]]
[[Category:Culture]]
[[Category:Freedom of speech]]

Categories: Law, Culture, Freedom of speech