In the two decades since it was decided, Zeran v America Online has been extensively analyzed, criticized, assessed and re-assessed by commentators, yet one of the Fourth Circuit’s central claims in the decision—that the “spectre” of tort liability on the internet would have an “obvious chilling effect”—has notably escaped more systematic study and evaluation, at least empirically. Despite the importance of these “chilling effect” claims to the court’s decision, this lack of empirical study is not altogether surprising. There has been strikingly little such systematic study of such chilling effect claims in various areas of law over the years. Part of the problem is that chilling effects are often subtle, difficult to measure, and require interdisciplinary research and methods going beyond traditional legal analysis. Thus, Leslie Kendrick found in 2013, after reviewing existing literature, that empirical support for such chilling effect claims was “flimsy” and thus requiring more far study.
To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.
Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.
ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at firstname.lastname@example.org