The Chilling Effect

Chilling effect occurs when governmental actions that do not abridge constitutional rights encourage individuals to refrain from exercising their rights (Lee, 2005). It most often occurs, when individuals wanting express an action(s) protected by the First Amendment, and is most closely associated with procedural aspects of free speech adjudication. Nevertheless, often this occurs during litigation to deter specific actions; for example, using the death penalty to leverage a plea deal.

To that point, an article written by Yale Law School, details the impact of chilling effects regarding Executive Order (E.O.) 12.333, which serves as the general charter for mass intelligence surveillance. Most recently, the MFIA Clinic helped the ACLU launch a litigation to learn more about the intricate details of Executive Order 12.333 (Perlin, 2017). According to the literature, increased disclosures regarding the workings of this Executive Order 12.333

reduces the chilling effect surveillance has on free speech.

Moreover, when laws or policies are overbroad and highly discretionary members of society often are unsure of what constitutes as liable, and therefore may over self-sensor to avoid any penalties.

Furthermore, the broader a legal text the more it will deter free speech, due to civilians wanting to avoid miscommunications. Results of chilling effects from mass government surveillance programs are demonstrated through recent studies, that document the disproportional impact of surveillance-based monitoring on women, minorities, and youth (Perlin, 2017).

Throughout the world, states have increased policing internet activities, it has been argued by activists that such activities have increased chilling effects, an empirical case study was conducted and administered to adult internet users. This study showed, a statistical significance of the chilling effect on younger internet users with regard to government surveillance, and that women were likely to feel the chilling effect when it involved personal legal

threats.

On balance, this article connected to the Young S. Lee text by taking a look at constitutional accountability through the chilling effect. Congress cannot make a law that abridges the freedom of speech or press, however, government can abridge the content of speech when it has compelling interest (e.g., public administrator speaking out against the government). Therefore, the chilling effect results in inherent fear, through censorship of speech.

Furthermore, according to (Schauer, 1978), one component of fear is the imposition of legal sanctions, another component is the magnitude of harm resulting from such a wrongful finding of guilty and liability. The objective of harshness of a particular sentence will influence the perceived severity of a punishment, and, in turn, dictate how one will view a legal judgement.