[5] However, the term is also now commonly used outside American legal jargon, such as the chilling effects of high prices[3] or of corrupt police, or of "anticipated aggressive repercussions" (in say, personal relationships[4]).
The court found that the law had a "chilling effect" on legitimate forms of expression and could stifle political debate on issues such as the legalization of marijuana.
[8] In 1644 John Milton expressed the chilling effect of censorship in Areopagitica: For to distrust the judgement and the honesty of one who hath but a common repute in learning and never yet offended, as not to count him fit to print his mind without a tutor or examiner, lest he should drop a schism or something of corruption, is the greatest displeasure and indignity to a free and knowing spirit that can be put upon him.
[11] It, however, became further used as a legal term when William J. Brennan, a justice of the United States Supreme Court, used it in a judicial decision (Lamont v. Postmaster General) which overturned a law requiring a postal patron receiving "communist political propaganda"[12] to specifically authorize the delivery.
This revelation had significant impact on the self-censorship of the readers, as shown by the fact that there were substantially fewer views for articles related to terrorism and security.