Jump to content

Talk:Chilling effect

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Chilling effect (law))

Thank you

[edit]

Thank you for having this, please take care of it. Thank you for your time. Endercase (talk) 16:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Chilling effect. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:33, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
Moved from WP:EF/FP/R
 – Not really a filter issue anymore. Discussion refactored a bit. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:07, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Was trying to add the concrete example from popular media (below) to illustrate the legal principle to a non-expert audience "In Season 2, episode 8 of The West Wing, Toby Ziegler explains to Leo McGarry that the real stakes of the school prayer fight are the chilling effect that allowing even 'voluntary' school prayers has on children who are not part of the dominant religion:

TOBY: But I'll tell you why [School Prayer] should be front and center. It's not the first amendment, it's not religious freedom, it's not church and state, it's not... abstract... LEO: What is it? TOBY: It's the fourth grader who gets his ass kicked at recess 'cause he sat out the voluntary prayer in homeroom. It's another way of making kids different from other kids when they're required by law to be there. That’s why you want it front and center; fourth grader; that's the prize." Icy13 (talk) 16:52, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Icy13: Can you cite a reliable source which discusses that episode as an example of a chilling effect? That's a reasonable interpretation, but Wikipedia is not about our interpretations but those published elsewhere. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 17:52, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Suffusion of Yellow: I can reasonably be considered a subject matter expert on the chilling effect concept (I am a PhD candidate in political science). While I have reviewed the policy on Wikipedia:Expert editors, I believe I am in compliance because I am providing information which is not about my own research, is not a synthesis of other research, but merely presents an example which increases understanding of a legal concept to a non-expert audience much as I would to my students. Such examples are common on other pages which deal with technical concepts both with and without external citation (cf. the last line of this section: State within a state#United_Kingdom. While I understand the encyclopedic purpose of Wikipedia requires documentation whenever possible, the stakes of providing an undocumented example from personal expertise seem to be much lower than the benefit of providing an accessible example from popular media. Put in other words, what sort of citation would be possible here? Experts would simply make the comparison in their course while explaining to students. It is highly unlikely that such an example would be published since it is a convenient comparison rather than new empirical evidence. Based on the WP:OR#cite_note-Exists-1, the fact that such an example would be used in a college class even if it cannot be accessed online or cited is considered a reliable source by definition.Icy13 (talk) 22:50, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

[edit]

I think there needs a short description, but I don't feel confident enough to make a short description for this page. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 05:32, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

However?

[edit]

The section § History is pretty confusing. For example, the second sentence here seems to just repeat the first sentence, not contrast with it. [Emphasis mine.]

The "chilling effect" referred to at the time was a "deterrent effect" on freedom of expression—even when there is no law explicitly prohibiting it. However, in general, the term "chilling effect" is also used in reference to laws or actions that may not explicitly prohibit legitimate speech, but rather impose undue burden on speech.

jlwoodwa (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chilling_effect&oldid=1251006725"