DOCSLIB.ORG

We Need a New Test for Anonymous Internet Speech

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
We Need a New Test for Anonymous Internet Speech We Need A New Test For Anonymous Internet Speech Law360 December 7, 2015 Law360, New York (December 7, 2015, 10:36 AM ET) -- The question of when the right to speak anonymously should give way to the right to preserve reputation recently made the news when actor James Woods, a caustic tweeter himself, sought an order requiring Twitter to disclose the identity of two anonymous Twitter users whom Woods sued after they tweeted he was a “cocaine addict” and “registered sex offender.” Whether Woods will be entitled to unmask his nemeses is yet to be definitively decided because the defendants have filed a special motion to strike Woods’ complaint pursuant to California’s anti-SLAPP statute, thus halting all discovery. Consequently, at least for the moment, the court denied Woods’ attempt to disclose the identity of the defendants. The key question now for the parties is whether the allegedly defamatory statements are provable fact or “figurative rhetorical insult.” The answer to that question, and whether Woods will ever learn the identity of the defendants, may turn, at least in part, on the court’s assessment of whether the speakers’ choice of the Twitter platform itself rendered, in context, what otherwise might be clear statements of fact into opinion, immune from the reach of Woods’ defamation claims. The right to speak anonymously has been a cherished tradition since the founding of the nation. Never before, however, have the tools to project anonymous speech been so robust or so ubiquitously used. As the U.S. Supreme Court recognized when it announced that the First Amendment applied to “the vast democratic forums of the Internet” no differently than to speech in other media, “any person with a phone line can become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox.”[1] However, just as the Internet allows messages to reach huge audiences, so does it magnify the potential damage that can be done when the right to speak anonymously is abused by defamatory speech. The tension between the sheer power of this new and very democratic medium for anonymous speakers, on the one hand, and the societal interest in protecting reputation, on the other, has caused courts to struggle with the standard that ought to be met before the identity of an anonymous speaker is revealed. Set the bar too low, and anonymous speakers might self-censor their remarks or not speak at all for fear of the consequences of being unmasked upon the mere filing of a defamation claim. Set the bar too high, and legitimate claims of damage to reputation could go without a remedy. Over time, tests announced in Dendrite Int’l Inc. v. Doe[2] and in Doe v. Cahill[3] became the leading tests for determining when it is appropriate to reveal the identity of an anonymous speaker. Although neither test is particularly old from a legal perspective, rapid changes in how people communicate online, and cases such as the one brought by James Woods, provide cause to examine whether the current tests are adequate given the prevalence of social media platforms such as Twitter.[4] The Dendrite Test In Dendrite, decided in 2001, a company sought to unmask anonymous defendants who posted negative comments about it on a Yahoo message board.[5] The court announced a four-prong test to determine whether the defendants’ identities should be revealed. The court required that: (1) the plaintiff undertake efforts to notify the anonymous posters that they were the subject of a subpoena or application for an order of disclosure and provide reasonable opportunity to oppose; (2) the plaintiff identify and set forth the exact statements purportedly made by each anonymous poster that the plaintiff argued constituted actionable speech; (3) the plaintiff set forth a prima facie case against the anonymous defendants by producing evidence for each element of the cause of action; and (4) the court balance a defendant’s First Amendment right of anonymous free speech against the strength of the prima facie case presented and the necessity for the disclosure of the defendant’s identity.[6] In establishing the “prima facie” standard, the court rejected the “motion to dismiss” standard that other courts had been using to determine whether a plaintiff’s claim was strong enough to compel the revelation of an anonymous speaker’s identity, cautioning that the motion to dismiss standard failed to provide a basis for an analysis and balancing of the competing rights.[7] The Cahill Test In Cahill, decided in 2005, the Delaware Supreme Court adopted what it termed “a modified Dendrite standard” consisting of the first and third prongs of the Dendrite test that: (1) the plaintiff undertake efforts to notify the anonymous poster of the subpoena or order of disclosure and afford the anonymous defendant reasonable time to oppose; and (2) the plaintiff support his defamation claim with facts sufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion.[8] The court rejected the second prong of the Dendrite test because it believed it subsumed within the summary judgment “prima facie” test. Similarly, the court rejected any need for balancing, stating that the summary judgment test itself was the balance.[9] Applying the Tests Many courts have adopted the Dendrite and Cahill tests or a modified version of them. Others, however, still apply a “good faith” standard[10] or a “motion to dismiss” standard,[11] both of which are less stringent than either Dendrite or Cahill. Consequently, while both Dendrite and Cahill are influential, a number of tests remain that could apply to a case brought against an anonymous Internet speaker. The selection of which of these tests to apply can be outcome determinative. For example, in Music Group Macao Commercial Offshore Ltd. v. Does,[12] a district court considered a claim that tweets posted about a company stating that the company encouraged domestic violence and misogyny were defamatory. When plaintiff sought to enforce a subpoena served on Twitter seeking the identity of the anonymous poster, the court applied a two-prong test of “middling rigor” which required (1) that the plaintiff provide evidence to support a finding of each fact essential to a given cause of action, and (2) a court assessment and comparison of the magnitude of harms. Applying the first prong, the court found that the tweeted statements on their face satisfied the required evidentiary showing. However, when it purported to balance the competing harms, the court noted that immediately following the offending statement, the post included a Web address leading to a “comedic” video by Music Group promoting one of its products. In that video, a woman is killed by a bullet that ricochets off of a food mixer.[13] Accordingly, the court deemed the allegedly defamatory statements to be joking and ironic. Although unstated, the court evidently concluded that statements intended to be joking and ironic would be of little harm to plaintiff, and thus the balance of harms tipped in the defendant’s favor. Had the court applied a test such as the Cahill test, which does not allow for balancing, the opposite outcome could have resulted. Once the court concluded that the plaintiff 2 had met the required evidentiary showing, the analysis would end, and there would be no balancing of the type that led the court in Music Group Macao to find for the defendant and preserve anonymity. The Need for a Uniform Test that Balances the Competing Rights at Stake Certainty in the law provides important protection of constitutional rights. The exercise of First Amendment rights via the Internet and social media theoretically could give rise to claims in many different jurisdictions, each of which might apply different standards when determining whether cause exists to reveal the identity of a speaker. Such uncertainty has the potential to chill Internet speech.[14] As such, courts should strive to adopt a uniform standard. That standard should look more like Dendrite than Cahill. The principal disagreement between the two involves the need for a separate balancing test even when the evidentiary standard has been met. As Dendrite recognized, a plaintiff has a right to “protect its proprietary interests and reputation through the assertion of recognizable claims based on the actionable conduct of the anonymous, fictitiously- named defendants.”[15] However, courts have also recognized that if “Internet users could be stripped of that anonymity by a civil subpoena enforced under liberal rules of civil discovery, this would have a significant chilling effect on Internet communications and thus on basic First Amendment rights.”[16] Because of these competing interests, a balancing test proves essential. An Arizona court in Mobilisa Inc. v. Doe noted the importance of balancing, specifying that it was necessary given the vast array of factually distinct cases involving anonymous speech.[17] In addition, the court cautioned that, without a balancing test, courts could not consider other facts such as the type of speech involved, expectations of privacy, and consequences of revealing identity for the speaker and others similarly situated.[18] When applying the balancing test in an age dominated by social media, courts need to pay special attention to context to provide the First Amendment the protection it is due. In Cahill, the court stated that the forum where speech is posted, whether the Internet or other traditional forms of communication, did not matter and that the same test should apply for unmasking anonymous speakers
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Trolling & the First Amendment
    TROLLING & THE FIRST AMENDMENT: PROTECTING INTERNET SPEECH IN THE ERA OF CYBERBULLIES & INTERNET DEFAMATION Fernando L. Diaz TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction ......................................................................................... 136 II. Background ......................................................................................... 139 A. Levels of Scrutiny as Applied to Different Types of Speech ...... 139 B. The Supreme Court’s Protection of Anonymous Speech in Traditional Forums ...................................................................... 140 III. Analysis ............................................................................................... 143 A. Using Elonis v. United States as a Case Study in Consideration of the Incompatibility of Traditional First Amendment Jurisprudence with Internet Speech. ...................... 143 B. Court Decisions Regarding Anonymous Speech on the Internet ................................................................................... 147 C. Legislative Overreach .................................................................. 154 IV. Recommendation ................................................................................ 156 V. Conclusion .......................................................................................... 158 “Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so the strength of our liberty depends upon the chaos and cacophony of the unfettered speech the First Amendment protects.”1 - Judge Dalzell Fernando L. Diaz has a B.A.,
    [Show full text]
  • November 2005 JH.Pmd
    Published by Pike & Fischer, a subsidiary of BNA, In c. http://ddee.pf.com Vol. 5, No. 11 | November 2005 Applying Sedona Principles, U.S. District Contents 1 News: Using Sedona Principles, Court Says Metadata Must Be Produced U.S. District Court Says Metadata Must Be Produced Under emerging standards of elec- vember 2003 (the case was filed the tronic discovery, a court order direct- preceding April), and again in Decem- 4 Courts & Procedure: The ing a party to produce electronic ber 2004. The plaintiff claims that to Current Legal Landscape spreadsheets as they are kept in the date, the defendant has produced for Native File Production ordinary course of business requires “only a few improperly redacted ver- the producing party to produce those sions relating to some plaintiffs and 6 Cases: Internet Archive Wins documents with the metadata intact. initial opt-in plaintiffs.” On April 12, Dismissal of Complaint; Magistrate Judge David J. Waxse’s 2005, defendant’s counsel agreed to Delaware High Court Adopts opinion in Williams v. Sprint/United begin producing the documents. Tough Standard For Revealing Management Company, 2005 WL No documents were produced by Identity of Anonymous Blogger; Scope of E-discovery 2401626, D. Kan. (September 29, the next discovery hearing on April in Florida Cases Examined; 2005), a provisionally certified em- 21, but counsel acknowledged that he Ginsburg Denies Emergency ployment action, is noteworthy not had nine boxes of such documents in Plea to Vacate Stay only for its holding on producing his possession and again stated that Lifting PATRIOT Act Gag Order metadata, but for the “emerging stan- their production would be forthcom- dards” he relied on to reach it.
    [Show full text]
  • MISSOURI COURT of APPEALS EASTERN DISTRICT STATE Ex Rel
    MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS EASTERN DISTRICT STATE ex rel. CONCERNED CITIZENS ) FOR CRYSTAL CITY et al., ) ) Relators, ) ) v. ) No. ED_________ ) HONORABLE BENJAMIN F. LEWIS, ) Judge, on Special Assignment, Circuit ) Court, Jefferson County, Missouri, ) ) Respondent. ) SUGGESTIONS OF AMICI CURIAE PUBLIC CITIZEN AND AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF EASTERN MISSOURI IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION In this case, the circuit court has ordered the host of an Internet message board to provide information identifying the authors of thousands of messages posted by citizens who exercised their First Amendment right to speak anonymously online, without making any individualized determination that there was a compelling need to breach those citizens’ right to speak anonymously and, indeed, without an explanation of why any of the identities should be disclosed. Courts in other states have consistently held that the First Amendment right to speak anonymously requires notice to those whose anonymity is sought to be breached and a legal and evidentiary showing that establishes a compelling need to overcome that First Amendment right. Moreover, appellate courts have routinely agreed that anonymously, interlocutory review is necessary to protect that 1 right to speak anonymously when a discovery order threatens that right. Accordingly, this Court should grant a writ of prohibition. I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE This petition for writ of prohibition arises from a motion to compel sustained in a Sunshine Act lawsuit brought by Concerned Citizens for Crystal City, et al. The plaintiffs contend that the City of Crystal City made the decision to lease land to Wings Enterprises for the construction of a pig-iron smelter through a series of secret meetings that violated the Sunshine Act.
    [Show full text]
  • Equity Will Not Enjoin a Libel”: Well, Actually, Yes, It Will
    SEVENTH CIRCUIT REVIEW Volume 11, Issue 2 Spring 2016 “EQUITY WILL NOT ENJOIN A LIBEL”: WELL, ACTUALLY, YES, IT WILL ∗ ANN C. MOTTO Cite as: Ann C. Motto, “Equity Will Not Enjoin a Libel”: Well, Actually, Yes, It Will, 11 SEVENTH CIRCUIT REV. 271 (2016), at http://www.kentlaw.iit.edu/Documents /Academic Programs/7CR/11-2/motto.pdf. INTRODUCTION “If there is one amendment, that is literally first among equals, then it is truly the First Amendment.”1 The First Amendment prohibits prior restraints on speech, i.e., judicial suppression of material that would be published or broadcast, on the grounds that it is libelous, defamatory, or harmful.2 However, the imposition of subsequent liability for defamation does not abridge the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment.3 It is this important distinction drawn by the United States Supreme Court—subsequent punishment vs. prior restraint—that denotes the permissible remedies and punishments in a court of law for defamation. One question remains unanswered by the Supreme Court: while the First Amendment allows for after-the-fact punishment for defamation in the form of money damages, or even imprisonment, does the First Amendment permit ∗ J.D., Chicago-Kent College of Law, May 2016. 1 Cailah E. Garfinkel, The Importance of an Independent Judiciary and a Free Press, 22 SUM DEL. LAW. 28 (2004). 2 There are a few exceptions to the prohibition on prior restraint discussed infra Part I. 3 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 301–02 (1964). 271 SEVENTH CIRCUIT REVIEW Volume 11, Issue 2 Spring 2016 permanent injunctions against published or spoken speech that has been found to be defamatory by a judge or jury? Permanently enjoining defamatory speech is preventing speech before it happens.
    [Show full text]
  • An Economic Analysis of Law Versus Equity
    AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF LAW VERSUS EQUITY Henry E. Smith* October 22, 2010 I. INTRODUCTION Like “property,” the terms “equity” and “equitable” are hardly missing from legal discourse. They can refer to fairness, a type of jurisdiction, types of remedies and defenses, an owner’s stake in an asset subject to a security interest and other ownership interests, as well as a set of maxims, among other things. These uses of “equity” and “equitable” all trace back to courts of equity, which, with some exceptions, ceased to exist as separate courts or even as a distinct form of jurisdiction by the early twentieth century.1 So the term “equity” might seem to be an etymological curiosity. This paper challenges that view. It argues that the notion of equity is functionally motivated and can be given an economic analysis under which it makes sense to have a separate decision making mode that is loosely identified with historical equity jurisdiction and jurisprudence. * Fessenden Professor of Law, Harvard Law School. Email: [email protected]. I would like to thank Bob Ellickson; Bruce Johnsen; Louis Kaplow; Steve Spitz; and audiences at the Fourth Annual Triangle Law and Economics Conference, Duke Law School; the George Mason University School of Law, Robert A. Levy Fellows Workshop in Law & Liberty; the Harvard Law School Law and Economics Seminar; the Workshop on Property Law and Theory, New York University School of Law; the University of Notre Dame Law School Faculty Workshop; the International Society for New Institutional Economics, 14th Annual Conference, University of Stirling, Scotland; and the Carl Jacob Arnholm Memorial Lecture, Institute of Private Law, University of Oslo Faculty of Law.
    [Show full text]
  • Beyond Terrorism: the Potential Chilling Effect on the Internet of Broad Law Enforcement Legislation
    St. John's Law Review Volume 80 Number 2 Volume 80, Spring 2006, Number 2 Article 5 Beyond Terrorism: The Potential Chilling Effect on the Internet of Broad Law Enforcement Legislation Todd M. Gardella Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/lawreview This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in St. John's Law Review by an authorized editor of St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. BEYOND TERRORISM: THE POTENTIAL CHILLING EFFECT ON THE INTERNET OF BROAD LAW ENFORCEMENT LEGISLATION TODD M. GARDELLAt INTRODUCTION Terrorists manipulate themselves to society's center stage by exploiting the omnipresence of the media within the modern information age. It is generally understood that, for so much as the cause of modern international terrorism seems to cast itself as diametrically opposed to western values and modernity, its proponents are unafraid to utilize the Internet to further their goals of disruption and destruction. In many ways, the information age is the great enabler of terrorism, providing not only the channels for terrorists to communicate amongst themselves throughout the globe, but also providing them the opportunity to amplify their voice, spread their message, and permeate the homes of those plugged into the modern world of interconnectivity. Both the ubiquity of the Internet and its connection with terrorism distinguish the new millennial era from previous eras of war or crises. The United States' war on terrorism comprises a global effort; terrorism's war on the United States pervades the consciousness of the interconnected multitudes in an effort to shatter our political will.1 In many ways, the decentralized, networked, and amorphous characteristics of the Internet resemble those of the modern terrorist infrastructure.
    [Show full text]
  • The Constitutional Implications of Body-Worn Cameras and Facial Recognition Technology at Public Protests
    Washington and Lee Law Review Online Volume 75 Issue 1 Article 1 8-30-2018 Chilling: The Constitutional Implications of Body-Worn Cameras and Facial Recognition Technology at Public Protests Julian R. Murphy [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr-online Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, First Amendment Commons, Fourth Amendment Commons, Law Enforcement and Corrections Commons, and the Science and Technology Law Commons Recommended Citation Julian R Murphy, Chilling: The Constitutional Implications of Body-Worn Cameras and Facial Recognition Technology at Public Protests, 75 WASH. & LEE L. REV. ONLINE 1 (2018), https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr-online/vol75/iss1/1 This Development is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School Journals at Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington and Lee Law Review Online by an authorized editor of Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Chilling: The Constitutional Implications of Body-Worn Cameras and Facial Recognition Technology at Public Protests Julian R. Murphy* Abstract In recent years body-worn cameras have been championed by community groups, scholars, and the courts as a potential check on police misconduct. Such has been the enthusiasm for body-worn cameras that, in a relatively short time, they have been rolled out to police departments across the country. Perhaps because of the optimism surrounding these devices there has been little consideration of the Fourth Amendment issues they pose, especially when they are coupled with facial recognition technology (FRT).
    [Show full text]
  • Doe V. Cahill
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE JOHN DOE NO. 1, ) ) No. 266, 2005 Movant Below, ) Appellant, ) Court Below: Superior Court ) of the State of Delaware in and v. ) and for New Castle County ) PATRICK CAHILL and ) C.A. No. 04C-011-022 JULIA CAHILL, ) ) Plaintiffs Below, ) Appellees. ) Submitted: September 7, 2005 Decided: October 5, 2005 Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices, constituting the court en banc. Upon appeal from the Superior Court. REVERSED and REMANDED to the Superior Court with instructions to DISMISS. David L. Finger of Finger & Slanina, LLC, Wilmington, Delaware for appellant. Robert J. Katzenstein (argued) and Robert K. Beste, III of Smith, Katzenstein & Furlow, LLP, Wilmington, Delaware for appellees. Paul Alan Levy (argued) and Allison M. Zieve of Public Citizen Litigation Group, Washington, DC; Norman M. Monhait of Rosenthal Monhait Gross & Goddess, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware; Lawrence A. Hamermesh of Widener University School of Law, Wilmington, Delaware, for amici curiae. STEELE, Chief Justice: The defendant-appellant, John Doe No.1, anonymously posted allegedly defamatory statements about the plaintiff-appellee, Cahill, on an internet blog. Cahill brought a defamation action. Seeking to serve process on Doe, Cahill sought to compel the disclosure of his identity from a third party that had the information. A Superior Court judge applied a good faith standard to test the plaintiff’s complaint and ordered the third party to disclose Doe’s identity. Doe appeals from the Superior Court’s order. Because the trial judge applied a standard insufficiently protective of Doe’s First Amendment right to speak anonymously, we reverse that judgment.
    [Show full text]
  • Reforming Non-Competes to Support Workers
    POLICY PROPOSAL 2018-04 | FEBRUARY 2018 Reforming Non-Competes to Support Workers Matt Marx MISSION STATEMENT The Hamilton Project seeks to advance America’s promise of opportunity, prosperity, and growth. We believe that today’s increasingly competitive global economy demands public policy ideas commensurate with the challenges of the 21st Century. The Project’s economic strategy reflects a judgment that long-term prosperity is best achieved by fostering economic growth and broad participation in that growth, by enhancing individual economic security, and by embracing a role for effective government in making needed public investments. Our strategy calls for combining public investment, a secure social safety net, and fiscal discipline. In that framework, the Project puts forward innovative proposals from leading economic thinkers — based on credible evidence and experience, not ideology or doctrine — to introduce new and effective policy options into the national debate. The Project is named after Alexander Hamilton, the nation’s first Treasury Secretary, who laid the foundation for the modern American economy. Hamilton stood for sound fiscal policy, believed that broad-based opportunity for advancement would drive American economic growth, and recognized that “prudent aids and encouragements on the part of government” are necessary to enhance and guide market forces. The guiding principles of the Project remain consistent with these views. Reforming Non-Competes to Support Workers Matt Marx Boston University FEBRUARY 2018 This policy proposal is a proposal from the author(s). As emphasized in The Hamilton Project’s original strategy paper, the Project was designed in part to provide a forum for leading thinkers across the nation to put forward innovative and potentially important economic policy ideas that share the Project’s broad goals of promoting economic growth, broad-based participation in growth, and economic security.
    [Show full text]
  • Defamation and John Does: Increased Protections and Relaxed Standing Requirements for Anonymous Internet Speech Stephanie Barclay
    BYU Law Review Volume 2010 | Issue 4 Article 5 11-1-2010 Defamation and John Does: Increased Protections and Relaxed Standing Requirements for Anonymous Internet Speech Stephanie Barclay Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/lawreview Part of the Computer Law Commons, and the First Amendment Commons Recommended Citation Stephanie Barclay, Defamation and John Does: Increased Protections and Relaxed Standing Requirements for Anonymous Internet Speech, 2010 BYU L. Rev. 1309 (2010). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/lawreview/vol2010/iss4/5 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Brigham Young University Law Review at BYU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in BYU Law Review by an authorized editor of BYU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DO NOT DELETE 12/20/2010 1:03:11 PM Defamation and John Does: Increased Protections and Relaxed Standing Requirements for Anonymous Internet Speech I. INTRODUCTION With the onslaught of blogging and discussion forums on the Internet, the marketplace of ideas has undergone a dramatic expansion.1 One commentator has suggested that “the Internet may . be the greatest innovation in speech since the invention of the printing press.”2 Another has praised the democratizing effects of the Internet, observing that “[t]he Internet is a democratic institution in the fullest sense. It serves as the modern equivalent of Speakers’ Corner in England’s Hyde Park, where ordinary people may voice their opinions . .”3 One reason that the Internet facilitates speech so effectively may be that it makes it incredibly easy for a speaker to veil his or her identity while simultaneously reaching a vast audience, which was previously difficult, or even impossible with a traditional flier or handbill.
    [Show full text]
  • Speech, Intent, and the Chilling Effect
    William & Mary Law Review Volume 54 (2012-2013) Issue 5 Article 4 April 2013 Speech, Intent, and the Chilling Effect Leslie Kendrick [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the First Amendment Commons Repository Citation Leslie Kendrick, Speech, Intent, and the Chilling Effect, 54 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1633 (2013), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol54/iss5/4 Copyright c 2013 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr SPEECH, INTENT, AND THE CHILLING EFFECT LESLIE KENDRICK* Speaker’s intent requirements are a common but unremarked feature of First Amendment law. From the “actual malice” standard for defamation to the specific-intent requirement for incitement, many types of expression are protected or unprotected depending on the state of mind with which they are said. To the extent that courts and commentators have considered why speaker’s intent should determine First Amendment protection, they have relied upon the chilling effect. On this view, imposing strict liability for harmful speech, such as defamatory statements, would overdeter, or chill, valuable speech, such as true political information. Intent require- ments are necessary prophylactically to provide “breathing space” for protected speech. This Article argues that, although the chilling effect may be a real concern, as a justification for speaker’s intent requirements, it proves unsatisfactory. It cannot explain existing intent requirements, and the difficulties of measuring and remedying chilling effects cast doubt on whether they could ever provide the sole justification for the choice of one intent requirement over another.
    [Show full text]
  • The Concept of Chilling Effect Its Untapped Potential to Better Protect Democracy, the Rule of Law, and Fundamental Rights in the Eu
    THE CONCEPT OF CHILLING EFFECT ITS UNTAPPED POTENTIAL TO BETTER PROTECT DEMOCRACY, THE RULE OF LAW, AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS IN THE EU Author: Laurent Pech © 2021 Open Society Foundations uic b n dog. This publication is available as a PDF on the Project website under a Creative Commons license that allows copying and distributing the publication, only in its entirety, as long as it is attributed to the Open Society Foundations and used for noncommercial educational or public policy purposes. Photographs may not be used separately from the publication. opensocietyfoundations.org March 2021 CONTENTS 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 1. WHAT IS CHILLING EFFECT? 6 2. CHILLING EFFECT IN ECHR AND EU LAW: SCOPE OF PAPER AND MAIN OBJECTIVE 8 3. CHILLING EFFECT IN ECHR LAW: A WELL-ESTABLISHED CONCEPT 15 4. CHILLING EFFECT IN EU LAW: A CONCEPT RIPE FOR INCREASED USE IN FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS/EU VALUES CASES 25 5. THE UNTAPPED POTENTIAL OF THE CONCEPT OF CHILLING EFFECT TO HELP PROTECT DEMOCRACY, THE RULE OF LAW AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS IN THE EU 1 The concept of chilling effect Its untapped potential to better protect democracy, the rule of law, and fundamental rights in the EU EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ECHR Law: Chilling effect is a well-established measures: (i) national measures whose vague or concept in the case law of the European Court of ambiguous content, specific or combined effects Human Rights. In practice, this concept has been and/or arbitrary application can dissuade natural predominantly used in freedom of expression- and/or legal persons from exercising their EU rights for related cases where the applicants were journalists.
    [Show full text]