So, while nobody in the West is facing ten-year sentences for speech these days, I don’t think the chilling effects are much less severe than in the WW1-era U.S.
Yes and no. In the last several decades there has certainly been a troubling trend of disregard for free speech in civil law—i.e. “cyberbullying” kinds of things, where people are now basically able to sue because their feelings got hurt. And you’re absolutely correct about the cost of litigation having a strong multiplier effect on the “chillingness” of such suits. But in criminal law, things are definitely MUCH better today than they were in the WW1 era. For one thing we now have a de facto Shelling fence around punishment of speech which is explicitly political in nature (like protesting the draft).
Yes and no. In the last several decades there has certainly been a troubling trend of disregard for free speech in civil law—i.e. “cyberbullying” kinds of things, where people are now basically able to sue because their feelings got hurt. And you’re absolutely correct about the cost of litigation having a strong multiplier effect on the “chillingness” of such suits. But in criminal law, things are definitely MUCH better today than they were in the WW1 era. For one thing we now have a de facto Shelling fence around punishment of speech which is explicitly political in nature (like protesting the draft).