Environmental Protesters Fight Defamation Lawsuit Filed by Coal Ash Landfill
老澳门开奖结果 Makes Free Speech Case Defending Residents of Low-Income, Majority Black Alabama Town
MOBILE, Ala. 鈥� The 老澳门开奖结果 today asked a federal court to dismiss a defamation lawsuit filed against four people who voiced opposition to a coal ash landfill in their small town.
The defendants, all residents of Uniontown, Alabama 鈥� a poor, predominantly Black town with a median per capita income of around $8,000 鈥� are being sued for $30 million by Georgia-based Green Group Holdings because the residents are fighting the hazardous coal ash that the company keeps in a landfill in a residential area.
鈥淭his lawsuit involves speech at the very core of the First Amendment,鈥� said Lee Rowland, senior staff attorney with the 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. 鈥淣o one should have to face a multimillion-dollar federal lawsuit just for engaging in heartfelt community advocacy. All Americans have a right to speak out against hazardous substances being dumped in their home towns, and the Constitution prevents companies from using lawsuits to silence their critics.鈥�
In 2009, Arrowhead Landfill in Uniontown became the new host for millions of cubic yards of coal ash after it spilled out of a landfill in Tennessee following a catastrophic dike failure. The coal ash in Tennessee contaminated land, rivers, reservoirs, and shore areas surrounding the landfill with arsenic and lead, leading the Environmental Protection Agency to conclude that there was a potential 鈥渋mminent and substantial endangerment to the public health.鈥�
Residents of Uniontown organized in opposition to what they saw as a racial and environmental injustice, speaking out against the risk to their environment and health, as well as the location of the landfill, which is across the street from several homes and next to one of the town鈥檚 historic Black cemeteries. Some 35 residents filed a complaint with the EPA鈥檚 Office of Civil Rights under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The complaint alleges that the Alabama Department of Environmental Management violated their civil rights by allowing the Arrowhead Landfill to locate in their predominately Black neighborhood without adequate protections for the health of residents or the environment.
Some citizens also organized a concerned-citizens鈥� group called the Black Belt Citizens Fighting for Health and Justice, which created a Facebook page that publishes concerns about risks to their environment and health. Green Group sued over the Facebook posts, which included statements such as 鈥渨e should all have the right to clean air and clean water鈥� and 鈥淚t affected our everyday life.鈥�
The population of Uniontown is 91 percent Black, and 48 percent live below the poverty line. In addition to being the site of the Arrowhead Landfill 鈥� the biggest municipal waste dump in the state 鈥� is also the site of a sewage lagoon, catfish farms, and a large cheese processing plant.
The site of the Arrowhead Landfill was once a plantation where Uniontown residents鈥� Black ancestors 鈥� including both enslaved people and tenant farmers 鈥� picked cotton, and some are buried in graves near the site. Some Black residents now say that they are unsure about the location and treatment of their ancestors鈥� remains.
鈥淪tate officials would never have allowed the landfill to be here if we were a rich, white neighborhood,鈥� said Esther Calhoun, one of the Uniontown residents Green Group is accusing of defamation. 鈥淭hey put it here because we鈥檙e a poor, Black community and they thought we wouldn鈥檛 fight back. But we are fighting back and we鈥檙e not afraid to make our voices heard.鈥�
Before filing the defamation suit, a lawyer for Green Group provided the defendants with a list of demands in exchange for not filing the lawsuit. The 鈥渟ettlement proposal鈥� 鈥� which was sent before any lawsuit had been filed 鈥� would have required a full apology from each defendant, full-day interviews about their community advocacy, forensic searches of each of our client鈥檚 electronic devices, access to the group鈥檚 future social media postings, and extensive details about Black Belt Citizens鈥� membership, advocacy, and communications with other environmental groups. The proposal also would have required each of the defendants to withdraw as complainants in the federal civil rights complaint filed with the EPA.
鈥淣ot only have Black people been expected to endure this kind of systematic racial and environmental injustice throughout our nation鈥檚 history, they are expected to bear it silently or be subjected to harsh consequences just for advocating for their health and community,鈥� said Dennis Parker, director of the 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 Racial Justice Program. 鈥淲e want to ensure that our clients don鈥檛 have to face that choice in Uniontown.鈥�
The defendants in the case are represented by lawyers from the 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 Speech, Privacy & Technology Project; the 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 Racial Justice Program; the 老澳门开奖结果 of Alabama; Charles S. Sims of the law firm Proskauer Rose; and Alabama attorneys Bill Dawson and Matthew Swerdlin.
罢辞诲补测鈥檚 motion to dismiss, the 鈥�settlement proposal鈥� previously offered to the defendants, and other case documents are here:
Free Speech
Racial Justice
Green Group Holdings v. Schaeffer: Defense of Environmental Protesters Against Defamation Lawsuit
Free Speech
Racial Justice
Green Group Holdings v. Schaeffer: Defense of Environmental Protesters Against Defamation Lawsuit
Learn More 老澳门开奖结果 the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
老澳门开奖结果 and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban老澳门开奖结果 and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON 鈥� Today, the 老澳门开奖结果, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok鈥檚 challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will 鈥渟hutter one of America鈥檚 most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.鈥� 鈥淭he Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,鈥漵aid Patrick Toomey, deputy director of 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 National Security Project. 鈥淭he Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.鈥� The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law鈥檚 profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court鈥檚 decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users鈥� First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government鈥檚 ban on TikTok as a vindication of users鈥� First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign 鈥減ropaganda.鈥� But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its 鈥渕otivating ideology鈥� or 鈥減erspective,鈥� and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. 鈥淭he government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,鈥� said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. 鈥淭he Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit鈥檚 erroneous ruling.鈥� Finally, the brief underscores that the government can鈥檛 impose this type of sweeping ban unless it鈥檚 necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government鈥檚 invocation of 鈥渘ational security鈥� as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. 鈥淩estricting citizens鈥� access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,鈥� said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. 鈥淚t would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.鈥� You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the 老澳门开奖结果 of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter鈥檚 privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer鈥檚 subpoenas.