“This is the end of a chapter, but not the end of our fight,” said Sushma Raman, Greenpeace’s interim executive director. “Energy Transfer knows we don’t have $660 million. They want our silence, not our money.”
A North Dakota jury has ordered Greenpeace to pay more than $660 million in damages to oil-and-gas pipeline company Energy Transfer.
According to CBS News, the Energy Transfer’s lawsuit claims that Greenpeace was responsible for the defamation, disruption of services, and property damage that occurred during a wave of 2016 protests.
Greenpeace maintains that Energy Transfer’s complaint is an obvious attempt to suppress free speech.
Iin a statement, a spokesperson for Energy Transfer cast the jury’s award as a resounding victory.
“This win is really for the people of Mandan and throughout North Dakota who had to live through the daily harassment and disruptions caused by the protesters who were funded and trained by Greenpeace,” the company said. “It is also a win for all law-abiding Americans who understand the difference between the right to free speech and breaking the law.”
Greenpeace, though, has already indicated that it plans to file an appeal.
“This is the end of a chapter, but not the end of our fight,” said Sushma Raman, Greenpeace’s interim executive director. “Energy Transfer knows we don’t have $660 million. They want our silence, not our money.”
Greenpeace, notes CBS News has accused Energy Transfer of filing a so-called “SLAPP” lawsuit, intended solely to censor Greenpeace’s First Amendment right to freedom of speech and assembly. Many states have legislation against SLAPP-type litigation; North Dakota, however, does not.
Rebecca Brown, the president and CEO of the Center for International and Environmental Law, said that the ruling has obvious and dire consequences for free speech.
“The verdict against Greenpeace not only represents an assault on free speech and protest rights,” Brown said in a statement. “This case is a textbook example of corporate weaponization of the legal system to silence protest and intimidate communities. This misuse of the legal system stifles legitimate dissent and must be seen as a direct threat to environmental justice and democratic freedoms.”
Kirk Herbertson, a New York-based attorney and the U.S. director for advocacy and campaigns at EarthRights International, told The Guardian that the verdict shouldn’t be construed as a reflection of the lawsuit’s merit.
“Today’s verdict is not a reflection of wrongdoing on Greenpeace’s part, but rather the result of a long list of courtroom tactics and propaganda tricks that Energy Transfer used to deny Greenpeace its right to a fair trial,” Herbertson said. “We hope that the North Dakota Supreme Court will question why this case ever made it to trial in the first place.”
Sources
Greenpeace must pay at least $660m over Dakota pipeline protests, says jury
Greenpeace must pay over $660M in case over Dakota Access protest activities, jury finds
Greenpeace ordered to pay more than $660 million to fossil fuel company over pipeline protests
Join the conversation!