The recent court ruling in North Dakota requires Greenpeace to pay over $660 million to Energy Transfer after being found liable for defamation, which experts say could enable further legal action against environmental protesters. This decision arrives amid a favorable climate for fossil fuel interests under the Trump administration, raising concerns about the implications for future protests. Advocates argue that such lawsuits represent a barrier to free speech, making it financially risky for environmental advocacy groups to challenge corporations. The ruling fosters a chilling effect on protests, as companies may now pursue aggressive legal tactics against dissenters.
This verdict will embolden other energy companies to take legal action against protesters who physically block their projects, said Michael Gerrard, the founder of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law.
Justice was served, he said. They can think twice now about doing it again, he said of Greenpeace and other environmental groups who protested the Dakota Access pipeline.
If companies can sue critics, advocates and protesters into oblivion for their speech and the unlawful acts of third parties, then no one will feel safe protesting corporate malfeasance, Hauss said.
This lawsuit serves as a tax on speech, one that makes it too expensive to go against litigious, deep-pocketed corporations.
Collection
[
|
...
]