{"id":270840,"date":"2025-03-31T17:10:12","date_gmt":"2025-03-31T17:10:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/2025\/03\/31\/a-quarter-billion-dollars-for-defamation-inside-greenpeaces-huge-loss\/"},"modified":"2025-03-31T17:10:12","modified_gmt":"2025-03-31T17:10:12","slug":"a-quarter-billion-dollars-for-defamation-inside-greenpeaces-huge-loss","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/2025\/03\/31\/a-quarter-billion-dollars-for-defamation-inside-greenpeaces-huge-loss\/","title":{"rendered":"A Quarter-Billion Dollars for Defamation: Inside Greenpeace\u2019s Huge Loss"},"content":{"rendered":"<div style=\"text-align:center\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/i1.wp.com\/static01.nyt.com\/images\/2025\/03\/28\/multimedia\/00cli-greenpeace-defamation-01-tzgp\/00cli-greenpeace-defamation-01-tzgp-facebookJumbo.jpg?ssl=1\" class=\"attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image\" alt=\"A Quarter-Billion Dollars for Defamation: Inside Greenpeace\u2019s Huge Loss\" title=\"A Quarter-Billion Dollars for Defamation: Inside Greenpeace\u2019s Huge Loss\" \/><\/div><p> <br \/>\n<\/p>\n<div data-testid=\"companionColumn-0\">\n<div class=\"css-53u6y8\">\n<p class=\"css-at9mc1 evys1bk0\">When the environmental group Greenpeace lost a nearly $670 million verdict this month over its role in oil pipeline protests, a quarter-billion dollars of the damages were awarded not for the actual demonstrations, but for defaming the pipeline\u2019s owner.<\/p>\n<p class=\"css-at9mc1 evys1bk0\"><a class=\"css-yywogo\" href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2025\/03\/19\/climate\/greenpeace-energy-transfer-dakota-access-verdict.html\" title=\"\">The costly verdict<\/a> has raised alarm among activist organizations as well as some First Amendment experts, who said the lawsuit and damage awards could deter free speech far beyond the environmental movement.<\/p>\n<p class=\"css-at9mc1 evys1bk0\">The verdict \u201cwill send a chill down the spine of any nonprofit who wants to get involved in any political protest,\u201d said David D. Cole, a professor at Georgetown Law and former national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union. \u201cIf you\u2019re the Sierra Club, or the N.A.A.C.P., or the N.R.A., or an anti-abortion group, you\u2019re going to be very worried.\u201d<\/p>\n<p class=\"css-at9mc1 evys1bk0\">The lawsuit, filed by Energy Transfer in 2019, accused Greenpeace of masterminding an \u201cunlawful and violent scheme\u201d to harm the company\u2019s finances, employees and infrastructure and to block the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline. Greenpeace countered that it had promoted peaceful protest and had played only a minor role in the demonstrations, which were led by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe over concerns about its ancestral land and water supply.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<aside class=\"css-ew4tgv\" aria-label=\"companion column\"\/><\/div>\n<div data-testid=\"companionColumn-1\">\n<div class=\"css-53u6y8\">\n<p class=\"css-at9mc1 evys1bk0\">A key part of Energy Transfer\u2019s case relied on defamation claims. For example, the jury found that Greenpeace defamed the company by saying it had \u201cdamaged at least 380 sacred and cultural sites\u201d during pipeline work, the first of nine statements found defamatory.<\/p>\n<p class=\"css-at9mc1 evys1bk0\">Greenpeace called Energy Transfer\u2019s lawsuit an attempt to muzzle the company\u2019s critics. \u201cThis case should alarm everyone, no matter their political inclinations,\u201d said Sushma<strong class=\"css-8qgvsz ebyp5n10\"> <\/strong>Raman, interim executive director of Greenpeace USA. \u201cWe should all be concerned about the future of the First Amendment.\u201d<\/p>\n<p class=\"css-at9mc1 evys1bk0\">Greenpeace has said it will appeal to the Supreme Court in North Dakota, the state where the trial was held. Free-speech issues are widely expected to figure prominently in that filing.<\/p>\n<p class=\"css-at9mc1 evys1bk0\">But Greenpeace was not the only party invoking the First Amendment.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<aside class=\"css-ew4tgv\" aria-label=\"companion column\"\/><\/div>\n<div data-testid=\"companionColumn-2\">\n<div class=\"css-53u6y8\">\n<p class=\"css-at9mc1 evys1bk0\">Upon leaving the courtroom, the lead lawyer for Energy Transfer, Trey Cox of Gibson, Dunn &amp; Crutcher, called the verdict \u201ca powerful affirmation\u201d of the First Amendment. \u201cPeaceful protest is an inherent American right,\u201d he said. \u201cHowever, violent and destructive protest is unlawful and unacceptable.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<aside class=\"css-ew4tgv\" aria-label=\"companion column\"\/><\/div>\n<div data-testid=\"companionColumn-3\">\n<div class=\"css-53u6y8\">\n<p class=\"css-at9mc1 evys1bk0\">Vicki Granado, a spokeswoman for Energy Transfer, described the verdict as \u201ca win for all law-abiding Americans who understand the difference between the right to free speech and breaking the law.\u201d<\/p>\n<p class=\"css-at9mc1 evys1bk0\">The clashing comments shine a light on a central tension in the debate: Where do you draw the line between peaceful protest and unlawful activity?<\/p>\n<p class=\"css-at9mc1 evys1bk0\">\u201cIf people are engaged in non-expressive conduct, like vandalism, like impeding roadways such that cars and passers-by can\u2019t use those roadways, the First Amendment is not going to protect that,\u201d said JT Morris, a senior supervising attorney at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a nonprofit that defends free speech across the ideological spectrum. \u201cBut peaceful protest, criticism of companies on matters of public concern, those are all protected.\u201d<\/p>\n<p class=\"css-at9mc1 evys1bk0\">The verdict landed in the midst of a larger debate over the limits of free speech. President Trump has accused news outlets <a class=\"css-yywogo\" href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2025\/02\/07\/business\/media\/trump-media-lawsuits.html\" title=\"\">of defaming him<\/a>, and <a class=\"css-yywogo\" href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2024\/01\/26\/nyregion\/trump-defamation-trial-carroll-verdict.html\" title=\"\">he has been found liable<\/a> for defamation himself. <a class=\"css-yywogo\" href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2025\/03\/28\/business\/jenner-block-wilmer-hale-trump-lawsuit.html\" title=\"\">His administration has targeted law firms<\/a> he perceives as enemies, as well as <a class=\"css-yywogo\" href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2025\/03\/27\/us\/students-trump-ice-detention.html\" title=\"\">international students deemed too critical<\/a> of Israel or of U.S. foreign policy. Conservatives have accused social media platforms of suppressing free speech and have vowed <a class=\"css-yywogo\" href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2024\/12\/30\/technology\/trump-administration-speech-policy.html\" title=\"\">to stop what they call online censorship<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p class=\"css-at9mc1 evys1bk0\">\u201cThere\u2019s nothing in this particular political climate that\u2019s shocking anymore,\u201d said Jack Weinberg, who in the 1960s was a prominent free-speech activist and later worked for Greenpeace. (He\u2019s also known for the phrase \u201cDon\u2019t trust anyone over 30,\u201d although <a class=\"css-yywogo\" href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2014\/10\/02\/us\/free-though-subdued-speech-50-years-later.html\" title=\"\">that\u2019s not exactly how he said it<\/a>.) \u201cBut it\u2019s wrong,\u201d he said of the verdict, \u201cand it will have profound consequences.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<aside class=\"css-ew4tgv\" aria-label=\"companion column\"\/><\/div>\n<div data-testid=\"companionColumn-4\">\n<div class=\"css-53u6y8\">\n<p class=\"css-at9mc1 evys1bk0\">There has long been a high bar for defamation lawsuits in the United States.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<aside class=\"css-ew4tgv\" aria-label=\"companion column\"\/><\/div>\n<div data-testid=\"companionColumn-5\">\n<div class=\"css-53u6y8\">\n<p class=\"css-at9mc1 evys1bk0\">The First Amendment protects free speech and the right to protest, and a landmark 1964 Supreme Court decision, <a class=\"css-yywogo\" href=\"https:\/\/supreme.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/us\/376\/254\/\" title=\"\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" target=\"_blank\">New York Times v. Sullivan<\/a>, strengthened those protections. To prevail in a defamation suit, a public figure must prove that the statement was false and was made with \u201cactual malice,\u201d meaning knowledge that the statement was false, or reckless disregard for its veracity.<\/p>\n<p class=\"css-at9mc1 evys1bk0\">Carl W. Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond School of Law, said that ruling intentionally raised the bar to win a defamation suit. \u201cIt\u2019s extreme,\u201d he said. \u201cIt\u2019s meant to be.\u201d<\/p>\n<p class=\"css-at9mc1 evys1bk0\">Eugene Volokh, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute at Stanford University, pointed to the history of that famous case. <a class=\"css-yywogo\" href=\"https:\/\/www.archives.gov\/exhibits\/documented-rights\/exhibit\/section4\/detail\/heed-rising-voices.html\" title=\"\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" target=\"_blank\">It concerned a 1960 ad<\/a> in The Times that described police actions against civil rights demonstrators in Alabama as \u201can unprecedented wave of terror.\u201d<\/p>\n<p class=\"css-at9mc1 evys1bk0\">A police official sued the paper and won. But the Supreme Court overturned the verdict. The court ruled that protecting such speech was necessary, even if it contained errors, in order to ensure robust public debate.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<aside class=\"css-ew4tgv\" aria-label=\"companion column\"\/><\/div>\n<div data-testid=\"companionColumn-6\">\n<div class=\"css-53u6y8\">\n<p class=\"css-at9mc1 evys1bk0\">In a Greenpeace appeal, Mr. Volokh said, the evidence demonstrating whether Greenpeace\u2019s statements were true or false would be crucial in evaluating the verdict, as would the question of whether Greenpeace\u2019s statements were constitutionally protected expressions of opinion.<\/p>\n<p class=\"css-at9mc1 evys1bk0\">Other issues that loom: What was permitted to be entered into evidence in the first place, and whether the instructions to the jury were sufficient. Then, he said, if the statements are found to be clearly false, is there enough evidence to show that Greenpeace engaged in \u201creckless falsehood, acts of so-called actual malice?\u201d<\/p>\n<p class=\"css-at9mc1 evys1bk0\">Any award for defamation chills free speech, Mr. Volokh added, whether against Greenpeace or against the Infowars host Alex Jones, who was found liable <a class=\"css-yywogo\" href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2022\/11\/10\/us\/politics\/alex-jones-sandy-hook-damages.html\" title=\"\">for more than $1 billion<\/a> over his false statements about the murder of children at the Sandy Hook school shooting.<\/p>\n<p class=\"css-at9mc1 evys1bk0\">In the Greenpeace case, the nine statements found by the jury to be defamatory referred to Energy Transfer and its subsidiary Dakota Access. One statement said that Dakota Access personnel had \u201cdeliberately desecrated burial grounds.\u201d Another said that protesters had been met with \u201cextreme violence, such as the use of water cannons, pepper spray, concussion grenades, Tasers, LRADs (Long Range Acoustic Devices) and dogs, from local and national law enforcement, and Energy Transfer partners and their private security.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<aside class=\"css-ew4tgv\" aria-label=\"companion column\"\/><\/div>\n<div data-testid=\"companionColumn-7\">\n<div class=\"css-53u6y8\">\n<p class=\"css-at9mc1 evys1bk0\">Other statements were more general: \u201cFor months, the Standing Rock Sioux have been resisting the construction of a pipeline through their tribal land and waters that would carry oil from North Dakota\u2019s fracking fields to Illinois.\u201d<\/p>\n<p class=\"css-at9mc1 evys1bk0\">The protests unfolded over months, from mid-2016 to early 2017, attracting tens of thousands of people from around the world, and were widely documented by news crews and on social media.<\/p>\n<p class=\"css-at9mc1 evys1bk0\">Janet Alkire, chairwoman of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, argued that Greenpeace\u2019s statements were true and not defamatory. \u201cEnergy Transfer\u2019s false and self-serving narrative that Greenpeace manipulated Standing Rock into protesting DAPL is patronizing and disrespectful to our people,\u201d she said <a class=\"css-yywogo\" href=\"https:\/\/standingrock.org\/2025\/03\/26\/standing-rock-sioux-tribal-chairwoman-janet-alkire-statement-on-the-jury-verdict-against-greenpeace\/\" title=\"\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" target=\"_blank\">in a statement<\/a>, using an abbreviation for the Dakota Access Pipeline.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<aside class=\"css-ew4tgv\" aria-label=\"companion column\"\/><\/div>\n<div data-testid=\"companionColumn-8\">\n<div class=\"css-53u6y8\">\n<p class=\"css-at9mc1 evys1bk0\">She said that \u201cscenes of guard dogs menacing tribal members\u201d were publicly available \u201con the news and on the internet.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<aside class=\"css-ew4tgv\" aria-label=\"companion column\"\/><\/div>\n<div data-testid=\"companionColumn-9\">\n<div class=\"css-53u6y8\">\n<p class=\"css-at9mc1 evys1bk0\">Videos of the incidents in question weren\u2019t shown at the trial. Everett Jack Jr. of the firm Davis, Wright Tremaine, the main lawyer for Greenpeace, declined to discuss why.<\/p>\n<p class=\"css-at9mc1 evys1bk0\">The 1,172-mile pipeline, priced at $3.7 billion when announced, has been operating since 2017. It carries crude oil from North Dakota to Illinois.<\/p>\n<p class=\"css-at9mc1 evys1bk0\">During the trial, some arguments hinged on whether the pipeline crossed Standing Rock\u2019s land, or how to define tribal land. The pipeline is just outside the borders of the reservation but crosses what the tribe calls unceded land that it had never agreed to give up.<\/p>\n<p class=\"css-at9mc1 evys1bk0\">There was also debate about whether tribal burial grounds were harmed during construction. Experts working for the tribe found that was the case, but experts brought in by Energy Transfer did not.<\/p>\n<p class=\"css-at9mc1 evys1bk0\">Even if a statement was false, Mr. Cole said, a defendant cannot be held liable if they had a basis for believing it. He also predicted that the penalty would likely be reduced on appeal if not overturned.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<aside class=\"css-ew4tgv\" aria-label=\"companion column\"\/><\/div>\n<div data-testid=\"companionColumn-10\">\n<div class=\"css-53u6y8\">\n<p class=\"css-at9mc1 evys1bk0\">Martin Garbus, a veteran First Amendment lawyer, led a delegation of lawyers to North Dakota to observe the trial, who have said that the jury was biased against the defendants and that the trial should have been moved to another county. He expressed concern that an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court could be used to overturn Times v. Sullivan. He noted that Justice Clarence Thomas has called for the Supreme Court <a class=\"css-yywogo\" href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2019\/02\/19\/us\/politics\/clarence-thomas-first-amendment-libel.html\" title=\"\">to reconsider that case<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p class=\"css-at9mc1 evys1bk0\">But Mr. Cole, Mr. Tobias and other experts said they did not expect the court to reconsider Times v. Sullivan.<\/p>\n<p class=\"css-at9mc1 evys1bk0\">Greenpeace has said previously that the size of the damages could force the organization to shut down its U.S. operations.<\/p>\n<p class=\"css-at9mc1 evys1bk0\">The lawsuit named three Greenpeace entities, but it centered on the actions of Greenpeace Inc., based in Washington, which organizes campaigns and protests in the United States and was found liable for more than $400 million.<\/p>\n<p class=\"css-at9mc1 evys1bk0\">A second organization, Greenpeace Fund, a fund-raising arm, was found liable for about $130 million. A third group, Greenpeace International, based in Amsterdam, was found liable for the same amount. That group said its only involvement was signing <a class=\"css-yywogo\" href=\"https:\/\/www.banktrack.org\/news\/global_call_on_banks_to_halt_loan_to_dakota_access_pipeline\" title=\"\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" target=\"_blank\">a letter<\/a>, along with several hundred other signatories, calling on banks to halt loans for the pipeline.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<aside class=\"css-ew4tgv\" aria-label=\"companion column\"\/><\/div>\n<div data-testid=\"companionColumn-11\">\n<div class=\"css-53u6y8\">\n<p class=\"css-at9mc1 evys1bk0\">Earlier this year, <a class=\"css-yywogo\" href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2024\/08\/20\/climate\/greenpeace-dakota-access-lawsuit-slapp.html\" title=\"\">Greenpeace International filed a countersuit<\/a> in the Netherlands against Energy Transfer. That lawsuit was brought under a European Union directive designed to fight what are known as SLAPP suits, or strategic lawsuits against public participation \u2014 legal actions designed to stifle critics. (State law in North Dakota, where Energy Transfer brought its case against Greenpeace, doesn\u2019t have anti-SLAPP provisions.)<\/p>\n<p class=\"css-at9mc1 evys1bk0\">The next hearing in the Netherlands case is in July.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<aside class=\"css-ew4tgv\" aria-label=\"companion column\"\/><\/div>\n<p><br \/>\n<br \/><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2025\/03\/31\/climate\/greenpeace-energy-transfer-dakota-access-defamation-verdict.html\">Source link <\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>When the environmental group Greenpeace lost a nearly $670 million verdict this month over its role in oil pipeline protests, a quarter-billion dollars of the damages were awarded not for the actual demonstrations, but for defaming the pipeline\u2019s owner. The costly verdict has raised alarm among activist organizations as well as some First Amendment experts, [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":270841,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"tdm_status":"","tdm_grid_status":"","fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/static01.nyt.com\/images\/2025\/03\/28\/multimedia\/00cli-greenpeace-defamation-01-tzgp\/00cli-greenpeace-defamation-01-tzgp-facebookJumbo.jpg","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[202148,171896,155970,21740,43104,357,190889,207920,166301,143503,23784,17434,9723,191946,4346,6859,207919,207921,53415,163229,207922,191944,163598],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/270840"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=270840"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/270840\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":270842,"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/270840\/revisions\/270842"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/270841"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=270840"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=270840"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=270840"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}