[FRIAM] "chilling effect"

[uǝlƃ ☤>$]

How is it epi? In both the SLAPP case and the SB8 case, it's a directly targeted effect. And it has a long history in prior things like informal policies for segregation and other law-gaming. There's no "epi" here.

And what's with that Wikipedia link? Were you trying to edit the page but your auth attempt failed? 

On 11/11/21 8:02 AM, Jon Zingale wrote:
> "Chilling Effect", now that's good epiphenomena. By that, I suppose I
> mean that "chilling effect" is more general than a simple gag or
> restraining order, it aims to inhibit or dissuade behavior. The content
> of chilling seems to live in the question of "why should a legal system
> dissuade or inhibit legal actions"? My first impression is that such a
> need arises in any legal system that is ultimately too rigid and unwieldy
> (or too ill-founded) to rigorously target the subject of its domain. So,
> probably, every non-trivial legal system.
> 
> On the one hand, "chilling" seems a natural choice for better fitting
> the letter of the law to its "spirit", but doing so also creates a lever
> connecting goals to functions (a la' Charles and Thompson):
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect#:~:text=13%5D%5Bfailed%20verification%5D-,Chilling%20effects%20on%20Wikipedia%20users,-%5Bedit%5D <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect#:~:text=13%5D%5Bfailed%20verification%5D-,Chilling%20effects%20on%20Wikipedia%20users,-%5Bedit%5D>


-- 
"Better to be slapped with the truth than kissed with a lie."
☤>$ uǝlƃ