人们经常声称诽谤法对言论自由有“寒蝉效应”。这种说法有什么问题?诽谤需要一个被指控的事实，这是虚假的，并损害另一个人的声誉(登特&凯尼恩，2004)。该声明称，当人们不太可能表达自己的想法时，言论自由的权利就会受到限制。诽谤法可以限制记者就安全或其他严重和紧迫的公共利益问题进行报道的能力，因此，人们经常声称，言论自由可能通过法律制裁或社会反对而产生寒蝉效应。然而，这种说法是有问题的，因为诽谤法不能限制言论自由。这篇文章将讨论诽谤作为一个概念在社会上是否是一件好事，以及它在言论自由方面的局限性。本文第一部分将通过诽谤法对言论自由进行负面影响和限制。然后它将转向诽谤法不能限制言论自由的论点，并从Joel Feinberg那里得到证据来解释诽谤不包括诽谤的权利。最后以韩国诽谤法为例，探讨言论自由的正当性。言论自由的目的是为了保护包括名誉在内的合法利益，所以每个人都应该有持有意见的权利，不受干涉。权利包括寻求、接收和使用信息的自由(Dent, C. & Kenyon, 2004)。诽谤被发明出来是为了保护人们站起来面对世界的能力。保护名誉和防止不公正的指控会降低人们在社会中所受的尊重。诽谤法必然是对言论自由权利的一种干涉。诽谤法的非法使用是为了维护公共秩序或保护公共利益(Feinberg, 1990)。言论自由的限制在于它是否包括诽谤和某种诽谤的权利。人们认为言论自由可能包括诽谤的权利，但“诽谤法对言论自由的寒冰效应”意味着人们不太可能说出自己的想法。它也使人们更加克制。这是一个负面影响。制裁的威胁有效地阻止了言论自由，但鉴于非刑事制裁在纠正任何对个人名誉的损害方面的充分性，这种制裁是不合理的(Feinberg, 1990, p.234)。诽谤法被当权者滥用以限制批评和逮捕公众辩论。这是有问题的。然而，人们应该表现出自我约束和谨慎，他们说别人。
It is often claimed that defamation law has ‘a chilling effect’ on freedom of expression. What is problematic with this claim? Defamation requires an alleged fact which is false and which harms the reputation of another person (Dent & Kenyon, 2004). The statement claims that the right to freedom of expression is restricted when people are less likely to express what they think. Defamation law can limit the ability to reporters to inform on issue of safety or other public interests that is serious and imminent, so it is often claimed that the chilling effect to freedom of speech may occur through legal sanction or social disapprobation. However, this claim is problematic because defamation law cannot restrict freedom of expression. This essay is going to argue whether defamation as a concept in society is a good thing and its limitations according to freedom of speech. The first part of the essay will provide the negative impact and limitation on freedom of expression through defamation law. Then it will move to the argument that defamation law cannot restrict freedom of expression and get evidence from Joel Feinberg in order to explain that defamation does not include a right to defame. Finally it will provide the example of South Korean defamation law in order to discuss the justification for freedom of expression.Freedom of expression is designed to protect legitimate interests including reputation, so everyone should have a right to hold opinion without interference. The right includes freedom to seek, receive and use information (Dent, C. & Kenyon, 2004). Defamation is something that has being invented to protect people’s ability to stand up and face the world. It is the protection of reputation and the prevention of unjust allegations that lower the esteem in which people are held in society. Defamation laws necessarily represent an interference with the right to freedom of expression. The illegitimacy of the use of defamation laws is to maintain public order or to protect public interests (Feinberg, 1990). The limitation on freedom of expression is whether it includes defamation and some kind of right to defame or not. People assume that freedom of expression might include a right to defame, but “The chilling effect of defamation law on freedom of expression” means that people are less likely to say what they think. It also makes people more restrained. That is a negative impact. The threat of sanction effectively stops free expression, but such sanction cannot be justified, in light of the adequacy of non-criminal sanction in redressing any harm to individuals’ reputation (Feinberg, 1990, p.234). Defamation law is abused by the powerful to limit criticism and to arrest public debate. This is problematic. However, people should show self-restraint and caution about what they say about other people.