EOTO #3: How the Chilling Effect Ruined the Regulation of Communism

Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines "chilling effect" as "a usually undesirable discouraging effect or influence." In terms of journalism this usually relates to a government law that is too vague that causes people to feel that their rights have been violated or that the unjust law is preventing them from doing something. It usually results in a court case and some have even made it to the Supreme Court. 

During my research on the chilling effect I found significant research and a very compelling article that proved that the chilling effect was the reason that communism groups and communism in general was so hard to regulate in the U.S. The U.S. government tried to regulate groups in vague ways such as forcing them to registrar or making them report their interests. However, communism constituents found themselves angered by such vague laws that stepped on their rights. Their reaction towards the government regulations was the chilling effect, it made citizens interested in communism back out of groups or not pursue their political interests because they did not want the government to know what they were doing. 

Bagett v. Bullitt: 

In Bagett v. Bullitt (1964) the U.S. sees their first communism strike down due to the chilling affect. A U.S. regulatory law began requiring members of the government who worked in Washington to sign a loyalty oath claiming they were not a part of a subversive organization. The same regulation also required teachers nation wide undivided allegiance to the United States. This discouraged people from signing up for communist groups and teachers who were a part of communist groups felt that it was a violation of their First Amendment.

The Supreme Court ruled to overturn both laws arguing that it did violate the citizen's First Amendment right of association of speech. This is an example of the chilling effect because it discouraged both government officials and teachers from exploring other political views. 

Lamont v. Postmaster General: 

A year later, another communism case arose due to the chilling effect. Lamont v. Postmaster General was a case that required individuals to registrar with their local post office if they wanted mail regarding communism. 

The Supreme Court abolished the law when they decided that it "chilled" individuals wishes to explore other political views. The chilling effect applies here because most individuals did not registrar because they did not want the government to know their political views. Another violation of the First Amendment. 

Dombrowski v. Pfister: 

Dombrowski v. Pfister case involves two laws that Louisiana created called the Subversive Activities and Communist Control Law and the Communist Propaganda Control Law. Any organizations in Louisiana that dealt with communism where required to sign up as a communist-front organization. 

The laws were tried in the Supreme Court as it went against the First Amendment right to assembly. This caused the chilling effect because it discouraged people in Louisiana to start or be apart of a communist organization that was regulated by the government. 

These three Supreme Court cases are examples of how the chilling effect ruined the regulation of communism. As someone who has a grandmother that lived through the communism take-over in Germany, I do not like communism. As much as I would like communism groups to be regulated to prevent the take-over of a communist or socialist behavior there is nothing the government can do to regulate it because it would violate others First Amendment rights and cause the chilling effect.