7 ms·

Greenpeace must pay over $660M in case over Dakota Access protest activities

92 points by pseudolus 2y ago

ctkhn 2y ago
Restricting protest like this may work short term, but long term it's a bad play even for the powers that be. If legitimate avenues of resistance are shut off and made as legally risky as more extreme acts, people will just jump to the more extreme. I'm worried that the US is going into something like the years of lead that's just going to make daily life more dangerous for everyone :(
- Tostino 2y ago
  Right...not that I'm advocating for it, but explosives placed on a pipeline are less obvious to find than a protest. I agree keeping peaceful avenues for resistance open is a good idea.
- pelagicAustral 2y ago
  > legitimate avenues of resistance... >> Defamation, trespass, nuisance, civil conspiracy and other acts >> Daily harassment and disruptions caused by the protesters It truly doesn't sound like any of these acts are lawful. Just the same as the lunatic radicals from Just Stop Oil, they are bringing no one into their team, au contraire, they are driving people right into the other team by causing major disruption in the layman's daily life, and ZERO effect on their imaginary enemies.
  - MSFT_Edging 2y ago
    > It truly doesn't sound like any of these acts are lawful. They should have known to stay within the Free Speech Zone[1]. "The zone, a cage in the middle of nowhere, had little effect because nobody of any importance saw them." [1]https://arresteddevelopment.fandom.com/wiki/Free_speech_zone https://arresteddevelopment.fandom.com/wiki/Free_speech_zone
    - sidewndr46 2y ago
      Why are you linking to a wiki about some sort of TV show? Free speech zones are a real thing in the US
      - collingreen 2y ago
        It's a sarcastic reference to a satire. The point they are making is that politely protesting in a way that doesn't have any impact on anything is ineffective and the abusers with power know this which is why they always clutch their pearls and try to prevent, undermine, or disparage anything else. Protest is an interesting thing. Sometimes you can just raise awareness through the approved, legal methods but sometimes you live in a society where the laws protect evil actions and punish anyone trying to change that. Obviously there will never be agreement from everyone about which situation calls for which actions.
- SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
  The pipeline company claimed (https://ccrjustice.org/sites/default/files/attach/2017/12/1%20complaint.pdf https://ccrjustice.org/sites/default/files/attach/2017/12/1%...), and apparently convinced a jury, that the protest movement was largely created by Greenpeace and associated groups spreading false information about their project.
- aaron695 2y ago
  [dead]
- potato3732842 2y ago
  >I'm worried that the US is going into something like the years of lead that's just going to make daily life more dangerous for everyone :( A serious reduction in the government's ability to enforce it's monopoly on violence would go a long way toward reducing wrong in the world (and it would also motivate the .gov to use its monopoly on violence better but that's beside the point). Organizations specifically, but individuals too, think to much in terms of legal and illegal and not enough in terms of right and wrong. If individuals and entities that wrong people had to pay up for their own enforcement and protection rather than just leeching on the taxpayer funded jackboots in blue to do it all (after a bunch of expensive court and lawyer process) they would quickly find that a lot of the wronging they do doesn't actually make economic sense. Tons of business models that amount to wronging people too little for them to sue you and too vaguely for a class action or swindling people big-time and then paying your way through the lawsuits to make it stick would evaporate overnight if they had to pay for their own enforcement and security. However, keep in mind that nothing is free. A lot of little people would be on the receiving end of violence too, not just exploitive megacorps.
m3kw9 2y ago
How does greenpeace make all that money if they can pay. The judges must know they have it to announce this
- jmclnx 2y ago
  >Netherlands-based Greenpeace How will they collect it ? Good luck with that, maybe greenpeace will just cease activities in the US. Or maybe support other groups.
  - dagw 2y ago
    Greenpeace USA and its subsidiaries are US based non-profits with assets in the US. Nowhere near $600M, but what they do have can be collected, and Greenpeace USA and all its subsidiaries will certainly be driven into bankruptcy
  - geeezzzz 2y ago
    > maybe greenpeace will just cease activities in the US imho that would be good outcome, many of those 'activities' are 'crimes' according to judge
    - breakyerself 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - geeezzzz 2y ago
        [flagged]
    - ceejayoz 2y ago
      This was a jury trial, not a bench trial.
      - geeezzzz 2y ago
        [flagged]
lupusreal 2y ago
Good. The first ammendment assures their right to peacefully assemble, not defame and commit crimes.
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  I mean, the folks who wrote that in also wrote this a few years earlier: > That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness… But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. The Constitution exists because of crimes, including treason against the King. (It is often also asserted that the Second Amendment exists for precisely this sort of scenario.)
- croes 2y ago
  The US existence is based on crimes. Boston Tea party, the whole independence thing. All crimes against the King.
delichon 2y ago
One would think that if there are clear cut examples of false statements that could do on the order of $300M in damage to the company, it wouldn't be difficult to find them. But the defamation allegations I'm reading don't seem to fit in that category, like * Accusations that Energy Transfer employed aggressive tactics against protesters. * Claims that Energy Transfer desecrated burial sites during the pipeline construction. * Statements characterizing the Dakota Access Pipeline project as "climate destroying". * Assertions that Energy Transfer was "motivated entirely by money, not its proclaimed concerns about environmental impacts". * Allegations that the pipeline posed a threat to the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe's water resources. These all seem to involve opinion as much as fact. What constitutes aggressive tactics, desecration, climate destruction, motivation, a threat to water resources? Are these damaging statements? Yes. Are they false? That's just, like, your opinion man. There should be an analogue of the Major Questions Doctrine to limit the power of juries for the same reason as for bureaucrats: legislators should answer those.
- Eridrus 2y ago
  One of the reasons we have juries is to answer subjective questions like this, because many questions in law are actually subjective.
  - billiam 2y ago
    As is the jury selection process, especially in low population areas. And jury instructions from the judge. This seems to be a particularly egregious example, and I think on appeal this will will be corrected.
- marcinzm 2y ago
  > There should be an analogue of the Major Questions Doctrine to limit the power of juries for the same reason as for bureaucrats: legislators should answer those. Does this also apply in the case of government or corporate abuse against people? For example class action lawsuits? I suspect those in power would love this since it's much easier to influence a few career judges than random jurors with "incentives."
cranium 2y ago
What would be the best course of action for them if they don't win the appeal? I guess they don't really want to raise more money to put in the pocket of an oil company... Should they declare bankruptcy and start all over again?
- GolfPopper 2y ago
  Appeal, appeal, appeal, and run for President of the United States, and never actually pay? You can buy a lot of lawyering for a tiny fraction of $660M.
- criddell 2y ago
  The idea that all of the assets of Greenpeace in the US could be transferred to an oil company is pretty wild. It would be interesting to see if they start using the Greenpeace, trademarks, logos, and websites. They could award endorsements: The 2026 Ford F-150 with EcoMode is a Greenpeace recommended vehicle!
  - ctkhn 2y ago
    They tried doing that with letting the onion bid on infowars' assets and then having it overturned. I get the feeling it might be a different reaction from the judge when the move is pulled in favor of an oil major and not a satire newspaper.
awongh 2y ago
I guess I never considered that these kinds of protest organizations can be held responsible for lost revenue. It seems like there's a thread connecting the Citizens United case / super PACs to organizations like Greenpeace- if a corporation's (non-persons) right to donate money is protected by freedom of speech, is Greenpeace's right to organize against a corporation protected speech as well? I can't find anything that specifies that they alleged any illegal activity by Greenpeace. Seems like otherwise any company can claim damages when a non-profit they don't like is organizing against them.
- matsemann 2y ago
  Tobacco companies have traditionally sued everyone trying to implement any kind of policy against tobacco use. That evil oil is doing the same (with success) is not surprising to me, unfortunately. We've built a world where profits trumps everything.
- giraffe_lady 2y ago
  Yes this is another major victory in the long bipartisan project of making protest de facto illegal.
chneu 2y ago
The podcast Drilled did a whole season on how governments have been systematically restricting climate protests for years and how it's ramped up quite aggressively the last decade or three. Tons of examples and whatnot. Great season. Highly recommend that podcast. She does an amazing job.
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  Same technique is being used to combat criticism of factory animal farming. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ag-gag https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ag-gag
calibas 2y ago
Suppose for a moment that human-driven global warming is real, and a direct threat to human survival. Suppose that burning fossil fuels is one of the biggest drivers of global warming. Now who are the "bad guys" and who are the "good guys"? The people defending the fossil fuel industry, or the people attacking it? Now I have my personal doubts about some of Greenpeace's methods, but maybe we should be doing much more to curtail the power of the oil industry?
- nradov 2y ago
  We should reduce the use of fossil fuels but that will take decades. Human civilization today can't operate without extensive use of fossil fuels. They're going to get used no matter what. Given that, it's a lot safer and cleaner to transport them using pipelines. If pipeline construction is blocked then oil companies will transport their products on railroads, which burn fossil fuels themselves and have caused numerous major spills and fires.
  - calibas 2y ago
    > We should reduce the use of fossil fuels but that will take decades. I remember people saying that decades ago, and fossil fuel consumption has only risen since then... Here in the US, we've been expanding production and breaking records! The opposite of what we should be doing, and I have no faith that the government, especially the current administration, is going change things either. This all works out great for the oil industry, the plans to solve climate change are perpetually decades away, and in the mean time oil consumption stays the same or even increases!
piokoch 2y ago
It is pretty surprising that Greenpeace, an organization that was for years actively fighting nuclear energy, what led to the crappy climate warming situation we have now, is accusing someone of "climate destroying".
- triceratops 2y ago
  If protesting vigorously, particularly by Greenpeace, killed nuclear energy, why isn't it working for fossil fuels?
  - prepend 2y ago
    There’s a lot more money in fossil fuels. And it’s more distributed with way more active sites than nuclear. It takes like, what, 15 years to bring a reactor online? A well can be dug and producing in 1-2 years and there are tens of thousands of them.
    - triceratops 2y ago
      > There’s a lot more money in fossil fuels Ding ding ding. You've found who/what killed nuclear. They even managed to frame the environmentalists.
      - akimbostrawman 2y ago
        Is it really framing when they voluntarily rally against it for decades while also gaining from it. At best they seem like useful idiots.
        triceratops 2y ago
        What else would you call it? Words don't end profitable businesses. Especially not in the energy industry.
        prepend 2y ago
throwaway5752 2y ago
This is a pyrrhic legal victory. If they can operate within the bounds of the law, it prevents asymmetrical outcomes that can't be made whole with financial restitution. If they can't operate within the bounds of the law, worse outcomes are possible. Particularly for ETP with their widespread physical infrastructure. Like others note, leaving that aside it seems like a kangaroo court outcome in terms of the facts of the case and amount of damages.
mystraline 2y ago
I fully expect to see any leftover money held in the USA to be moved out. I see no reason why Greenpeace shouldn't cut losses, and leave any sort of nonprofit status in the USA. Abandon it all. And for the next 3y 10mo at minimum, this place will be a no-go zone. My worry is that when peaceful (but annoying!) resistance is illegalized, that much more violent actions will be started in its stead. Violence can be done by individuals, and to large effect. I'd rather have people yelling and waving signs, than what would amount to terrorism.
breakyerself 2y ago
Probably time for them to disband their above board operations and reform as a clandestine paramilitary organization.
liminal 2y ago
An issue I've noticed with court imposed fines is that they seem to be set based on the cost of the incident involved, not relative to the finances of the org/person being fined. A pipeline is very expensive, so fines end up being very expensive regardless of the receiver's ability to pay. OTOH, a large company can destroy lives with impunity since the cost of a person's entire lifetime earnings is not material to a multinational corporation's bottom line. This seems backwards to me. Fines should be set in such a way as to properly disincentivize behavior and adjusted to the means of the person/organization paying them.
- nradov 2y ago
  You missed the point of the court's decision. This was a civil trial for damages. Criminal fines weren't a factor here. The intent of damages is to make the plaintiff whole. The defendant's finances aren't supposed to be a factor. There's a good chance that the total damages will be reduced on appeal. This case will drag on for years.
benmmurphy 2y ago
this seems similar to the alex jones decision. these large defamation suits threaten the first amendment. i'm sure partisans on both sides will have some excuse why one of these suits is fine and the other is terrible.
xtiansimon 2y ago
When I heard this ruling yesterday I thought, Oh boy. What did Greenpeace damage/destroy? Nope, defamation and trespassing. This is a smack down.

92 points by pseudolus 2y ago

Restricting protest like this may work short term, but long term it's a bad play even for the powers that be. If legitimate avenues of resistance are shut off and made as legally risky as more extreme acts, people will just jump to the more extreme. I'm worried that the US is going into something like the years of lead that's just going to make daily life more dangerous for everyone :(

Tostino 2y ago
Right...not that I'm advocating for it, but explosives placed on a pipeline are less obvious to find than a protest. I agree keeping peaceful avenues for resistance open is a good idea.
pelagicAustral 2y ago
> legitimate avenues of resistance... >> Defamation, trespass, nuisance, civil conspiracy and other acts >> Daily harassment and disruptions caused by the protesters It truly doesn't sound like any of these acts are lawful. Just the same as the lunatic radicals from Just Stop Oil, they are bringing no one into their team, au contraire, they are driving people right into the other team by causing major disruption in the layman's daily life, and ZERO effect on their imaginary enemies.
- MSFT_Edging 2y ago
  > It truly doesn't sound like any of these acts are lawful. They should have known to stay within the Free Speech Zone[1]. "The zone, a cage in the middle of nowhere, had little effect because nobody of any importance saw them." [1]https://arresteddevelopment.fandom.com/wiki/Free_speech_zone https://arresteddevelopment.fandom.com/wiki/Free_speech_zone
  - sidewndr46 2y ago
    Why are you linking to a wiki about some sort of TV show? Free speech zones are a real thing in the US
    - collingreen 2y ago
      It's a sarcastic reference to a satire. The point they are making is that politely protesting in a way that doesn't have any impact on anything is ineffective and the abusers with power know this which is why they always clutch their pearls and try to prevent, undermine, or disparage anything else. Protest is an interesting thing. Sometimes you can just raise awareness through the approved, legal methods but sometimes you live in a society where the laws protect evil actions and punish anyone trying to change that. Obviously there will never be agreement from everyone about which situation calls for which actions.
SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
The pipeline company claimed (https://ccrjustice.org/sites/default/files/attach/2017/12/1%20complaint.pdf https://ccrjustice.org/sites/default/files/attach/2017/12/1%...), and apparently convinced a jury, that the protest movement was largely created by Greenpeace and associated groups spreading false information about their project.
aaron695 2y ago
[dead]
potato3732842 2y ago
>I'm worried that the US is going into something like the years of lead that's just going to make daily life more dangerous for everyone :( A serious reduction in the government's ability to enforce it's monopoly on violence would go a long way toward reducing wrong in the world (and it would also motivate the .gov to use its monopoly on violence better but that's beside the point). Organizations specifically, but individuals too, think to much in terms of legal and illegal and not enough in terms of right and wrong. If individuals and entities that wrong people had to pay up for their own enforcement and protection rather than just leeching on the taxpayer funded jackboots in blue to do it all (after a bunch of expensive court and lawyer process) they would quickly find that a lot of the wronging they do doesn't actually make economic sense. Tons of business models that amount to wronging people too little for them to sue you and too vaguely for a class action or swindling people big-time and then paying your way through the lawsuits to make it stick would evaporate overnight if they had to pay for their own enforcement and security. However, keep in mind that nothing is free. A lot of little people would be on the receiving end of violence too, not just exploitive megacorps.

m3kw9 2y ago

How does greenpeace make all that money if they can pay. The judges must know they have it to announce this

jmclnx 2y ago
>Netherlands-based Greenpeace How will they collect it ? Good luck with that, maybe greenpeace will just cease activities in the US. Or maybe support other groups.
- dagw 2y ago
  Greenpeace USA and its subsidiaries are US based non-profits with assets in the US. Nowhere near $600M, but what they do have can be collected, and Greenpeace USA and all its subsidiaries will certainly be driven into bankruptcy
- geeezzzz 2y ago
  > maybe greenpeace will just cease activities in the US imho that would be good outcome, many of those 'activities' are 'crimes' according to judge
  - breakyerself 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - geeezzzz 2y ago
      [flagged]
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    This was a jury trial, not a bench trial.
    - geeezzzz 2y ago
      [flagged]

lupusreal 2y ago

Good. The first ammendment assures their right to peacefully assemble, not defame and commit crimes.

ceejayoz 2y ago
I mean, the folks who wrote that in also wrote this a few years earlier: > That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness… But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. The Constitution exists because of crimes, including treason against the King. (It is often also asserted that the Second Amendment exists for precisely this sort of scenario.)
croes 2y ago
The US existence is based on crimes. Boston Tea party, the whole independence thing. All crimes against the King.

delichon 2y ago

One would think that if there are clear cut examples of false statements that could do on the order of $300M in damage to the company, it wouldn't be difficult to find them. But the defamation allegations I'm reading don't seem to fit in that category, like * Accusations that Energy Transfer employed aggressive tactics against protesters. * Claims that Energy Transfer desecrated burial sites during the pipeline construction. * Statements characterizing the Dakota Access Pipeline project as "climate destroying". * Assertions that Energy Transfer was "motivated entirely by money, not its proclaimed concerns about environmental impacts". * Allegations that the pipeline posed a threat to the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe's water resources. These all seem to involve opinion as much as fact. What constitutes aggressive tactics, desecration, climate destruction, motivation, a threat to water resources? Are these damaging statements? Yes. Are they false? That's just, like, your opinion man. There should be an analogue of the Major Questions Doctrine to limit the power of juries for the same reason as for bureaucrats: legislators should answer those.

Eridrus 2y ago
One of the reasons we have juries is to answer subjective questions like this, because many questions in law are actually subjective.
- billiam 2y ago
  As is the jury selection process, especially in low population areas. And jury instructions from the judge. This seems to be a particularly egregious example, and I think on appeal this will will be corrected.
marcinzm 2y ago
> There should be an analogue of the Major Questions Doctrine to limit the power of juries for the same reason as for bureaucrats: legislators should answer those. Does this also apply in the case of government or corporate abuse against people? For example class action lawsuits? I suspect those in power would love this since it's much easier to influence a few career judges than random jurors with "incentives."

cranium 2y ago

What would be the best course of action for them if they don't win the appeal? I guess they don't really want to raise more money to put in the pocket of an oil company... Should they declare bankruptcy and start all over again?

GolfPopper 2y ago
Appeal, appeal, appeal, and run for President of the United States, and never actually pay? You can buy a lot of lawyering for a tiny fraction of $660M.
criddell 2y ago
The idea that all of the assets of Greenpeace in the US could be transferred to an oil company is pretty wild. It would be interesting to see if they start using the Greenpeace, trademarks, logos, and websites. They could award endorsements: The 2026 Ford F-150 with EcoMode is a Greenpeace recommended vehicle!
- ctkhn 2y ago
  They tried doing that with letting the onion bid on infowars' assets and then having it overturned. I get the feeling it might be a different reaction from the judge when the move is pulled in favor of an oil major and not a satire newspaper.

awongh 2y ago

I guess I never considered that these kinds of protest organizations can be held responsible for lost revenue. It seems like there's a thread connecting the Citizens United case / super PACs to organizations like Greenpeace- if a corporation's (non-persons) right to donate money is protected by freedom of speech, is Greenpeace's right to organize against a corporation protected speech as well? I can't find anything that specifies that they alleged any illegal activity by Greenpeace. Seems like otherwise any company can claim damages when a non-profit they don't like is organizing against them.

matsemann 2y ago
Tobacco companies have traditionally sued everyone trying to implement any kind of policy against tobacco use. That evil oil is doing the same (with success) is not surprising to me, unfortunately. We've built a world where profits trumps everything.
giraffe_lady 2y ago
Yes this is another major victory in the long bipartisan project of making protest de facto illegal.

chneu 2y ago

The podcast Drilled did a whole season on how governments have been systematically restricting climate protests for years and how it's ramped up quite aggressively the last decade or three. Tons of examples and whatnot. Great season. Highly recommend that podcast. She does an amazing job.

ceejayoz 2y ago
Same technique is being used to combat criticism of factory animal farming. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ag-gag https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ag-gag

calibas 2y ago

Suppose for a moment that human-driven global warming is real, and a direct threat to human survival. Suppose that burning fossil fuels is one of the biggest drivers of global warming. Now who are the "bad guys" and who are the "good guys"? The people defending the fossil fuel industry, or the people attacking it? Now I have my personal doubts about some of Greenpeace's methods, but maybe we should be doing much more to curtail the power of the oil industry?

nradov 2y ago
We should reduce the use of fossil fuels but that will take decades. Human civilization today can't operate without extensive use of fossil fuels. They're going to get used no matter what. Given that, it's a lot safer and cleaner to transport them using pipelines. If pipeline construction is blocked then oil companies will transport their products on railroads, which burn fossil fuels themselves and have caused numerous major spills and fires.
- calibas 2y ago
  > We should reduce the use of fossil fuels but that will take decades. I remember people saying that decades ago, and fossil fuel consumption has only risen since then... Here in the US, we've been expanding production and breaking records! The opposite of what we should be doing, and I have no faith that the government, especially the current administration, is going change things either. This all works out great for the oil industry, the plans to solve climate change are perpetually decades away, and in the mean time oil consumption stays the same or even increases!

piokoch 2y ago

It is pretty surprising that Greenpeace, an organization that was for years actively fighting nuclear energy, what led to the crappy climate warming situation we have now, is accusing someone of "climate destroying".

triceratops 2y ago
If protesting vigorously, particularly by Greenpeace, killed nuclear energy, why isn't it working for fossil fuels?
- prepend 2y ago
  There’s a lot more money in fossil fuels. And it’s more distributed with way more active sites than nuclear. It takes like, what, 15 years to bring a reactor online? A well can be dug and producing in 1-2 years and there are tens of thousands of them.
  - triceratops 2y ago
    > There’s a lot more money in fossil fuels Ding ding ding. You've found who/what killed nuclear. They even managed to frame the environmentalists.
    - akimbostrawman 2y ago
      Is it really framing when they voluntarily rally against it for decades while also gaining from it. At best they seem like useful idiots.
      - triceratops 2y ago
        What else would you call it? Words don't end profitable businesses. Especially not in the energy industry.
        prepend 2y ago

throwaway5752 2y ago

This is a pyrrhic legal victory. If they can operate within the bounds of the law, it prevents asymmetrical outcomes that can't be made whole with financial restitution. If they can't operate within the bounds of the law, worse outcomes are possible. Particularly for ETP with their widespread physical infrastructure. Like others note, leaving that aside it seems like a kangaroo court outcome in terms of the facts of the case and amount of damages.

mystraline 2y ago

I fully expect to see any leftover money held in the USA to be moved out. I see no reason why Greenpeace shouldn't cut losses, and leave any sort of nonprofit status in the USA. Abandon it all. And for the next 3y 10mo at minimum, this place will be a no-go zone. My worry is that when peaceful (but annoying!) resistance is illegalized, that much more violent actions will be started in its stead. Violence can be done by individuals, and to large effect. I'd rather have people yelling and waving signs, than what would amount to terrorism.

breakyerself 2y ago

Probably time for them to disband their above board operations and reform as a clandestine paramilitary organization.

liminal 2y ago

An issue I've noticed with court imposed fines is that they seem to be set based on the cost of the incident involved, not relative to the finances of the org/person being fined. A pipeline is very expensive, so fines end up being very expensive regardless of the receiver's ability to pay. OTOH, a large company can destroy lives with impunity since the cost of a person's entire lifetime earnings is not material to a multinational corporation's bottom line. This seems backwards to me. Fines should be set in such a way as to properly disincentivize behavior and adjusted to the means of the person/organization paying them.

nradov 2y ago
You missed the point of the court's decision. This was a civil trial for damages. Criminal fines weren't a factor here. The intent of damages is to make the plaintiff whole. The defendant's finances aren't supposed to be a factor. There's a good chance that the total damages will be reduced on appeal. This case will drag on for years.

benmmurphy 2y ago

this seems similar to the alex jones decision. these large defamation suits threaten the first amendment. i'm sure partisans on both sides will have some excuse why one of these suits is fine and the other is terrible.

xtiansimon 2y ago

When I heard this ruling yesterday I thought, Oh boy. What did Greenpeace damage/destroy? Nope, defamation and trespassing. This is a smack down.