A "traditional" analysis, the authors continued, examines the question of the contribution of libel law to the quality of discourse in two main parameters. On the one hand, it is customary to speak of a warning effect, which simply means that "strong" laws of defamation will spur us to refrain from false expressions. The fear of being liable for defamation will, thus, lead to a reduction in the number of those who make false statements and the false expressions in their mouths. On the other hand, there is a fear of a chilling outcome, which means excessive deterrence of those who make statements, who intended to speak the truth from the outset. The chilling outcome will dissuade any of them from participating in the discourse, whether because of his fear that the law will come - by mistake or out of the speaker's admission of his mistake - to the conclusion that the words are false; or because of his reluctance to repel the heavy expenses involved in repelling a defamation lawsuit.
- Analysis of Porat andThe Hemel He suggested taking into account, in addition to these departing workers, a third result, which is the opposite of the cooling one, and is therefore called the "warming result."The Warming Effect"; Id, at p. 66). In a strict regime of defamation, the cost of a lie is expected to be relatively high compared to that of a truth. As it goes without saying this, this should expand the scope of the quality discourse, that of truthful words. As a result, the discourse will be perceived by public opinion as more credible. People who have been silent in the past will want to bring their expressions of truth to such a discourse, which gives weight and credibility to their words. There will be an increased willingness to invest in telling the truth (for example, through investigative journalism, which is more expensive than "reporting" journalism alone). The effect of the cooling effect will be reduced, sometimes to the point of actually "offset" it. Increasing the credibility of the discourse, and with it increasing the credibility of expressions about negative social behavior, may, in turn, facilitate the exposure of such behavior and motivate people to enlist ("mobilize"; Id, at p. 80) against her.
In clear language, with all due respect, Justice Sohlberg explained this position: