If you want to experience 2017 in a nutshell, check out the billion-dollar lawsuit filed by an oil and gas company against Greenpeace and other environmental groups for their roles in the Standing Rock protests.
In a 231-page , Energy Transfer Partners, the company behind the Dakota Access Pipeline, claims that Greenpeace and its partners are engaged in a criminal network of fraud and misinformation. The paranoiac complaint, which includes references to 鈥渨olfpacks of corrupt鈥� environmental nongovernmental organizations and describes Greenpeace as a 鈥減utative Dutch not-for-profit foundation,鈥� would be amusing if it weren鈥檛 so dangerous.
It leverages the , a statute that was meant for mob prosecutions, and defamation law to wage a scorched-earth campaign against nonprofits that spoke out against the pipeline鈥檚 construction near the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation in North Dakota. Fortunately, as we argue in a friend-of-the-court brief filed yesterday with a coalition of public interest groups, the First Amendment prohibits companies from suing their critics out of existence.
ETP鈥檚 lawsuit rests on two theories, neither of which holds water.
First, it argues that Greenpeace and the other defendants are engaged in a broad-based conspiracy to defraud the public by defaming the company. But many of the statements ETP alleges as false or defamatory 鈥� such as website posts stating that the tribal consultation and environmental review were rushed and lacked proper consultation 鈥� are clearly protected opinions on matters of vital public concern. Other offending statements, such as a post by the Sierra Club鈥檚 Executive Director stating 鈥渋t has never been a question of whether a pipeline will spill but only of when the next disaster will happen,鈥� don鈥檛 seem very unreasonable, given at the Keystone pipeline in South Dakota. ETP can鈥檛 demand punishment for this kind of core political speech just because it doesn鈥檛 like the message.
ETP鈥檚 second legal argument fares no better. It argues that, because Greenpeace and the other defendants are allegedly engaged in a vast 鈥渋llegal Enterprise鈥� to persecute ETP, they should be held liable for the allegedly unlawful actions of totally unrelated groups that also happen to oppose the Dakota Access Pipeline. For example, ETP alleges that the hacktivist group Anonymous is a 鈥渇ront鈥� for Greenpeace and the other defendants, but this wild accusation is based on nothing more than the observation that Anonymous targeted the same entities being protested by the defendants.
If accepted, ETP鈥檚 theories would make any advocacy group liable for the actions of every fellow traveler, no matter how disconnected. For example, if the 老澳门开奖结果 filed a lawsuit challenging a government surveillance program, ETP鈥檚 theory of liability could make us civilly, and perhaps even criminally, liable for the actions of any hacker that attempted to take down the program.
If the courts have any sense, this case won鈥檛 get to trial. But ETP doesn鈥檛 need to win in court to do major damage. Defending major lawsuits like these against deep-pocketed corporations is extremely expensive, time consuming, and stressful, particularly for cash strapped nonprofits. Even if they survive, advocacy groups have to divert serious resources away from their missions to litigate these issues. That鈥檚 why it鈥檚 important for courts to dismiss these cases early, before things get really expensive.
Protesters and advocacy groups should never have to fear the weight of groups like ETP as a condition for expressing their First Amendment rights. The court should see this lawsuit for what it is and toss it.
