Rolf Skar, National Campaigns Director at Greenpeace, discusses a contentious $300 million lawsuit from Energy Transfer Partners targeting his organization. Montgomery Brown, a member of the Standing Rock grassroots movement, shares insights from the Dakota Access Pipeline protests, emphasizing the communal spirit of activism. Laura Prather, an expert on anti-SLAPP laws, explains how such lawsuits seek to silence dissent and the broader implications for free speech and environmental advocacy. The conversation reveals the chilling effects of corporate legal tactics on grassroots movements.
Energy Transfer's $300 million lawsuit against Greenpeace exemplifies the misuse of legal power to suppress dissent and intimidate activists.
The Standing Rock protests highlighted the importance of indigenous rights and grassroots activism in challenging corporate-led projects harmful to the environment.
The growing prevalence of SLAP suits poses a significant threat to free speech, prompting calls for stronger anti-SLAP laws to protect public engagement.
Deep dives
Understanding SLAP Lawsuits
Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, known as SLAP suits, are designed to intimidate individuals and organizations by using the legal system to suppress free expression and dissent. These lawsuits target activists and journalists who voice criticisms or raise awareness about issues, aiming to silence them through the threat of costly legal battles. The term 'SLAP' highlights how powerful entities, often with extensive resources, can use legal intimidation as a tactic to lower public opposition. Over the past years, many U.S. states have begun passing legislation to counteract SLAP suits, establishing protections for free speech and participation in public debate.
The Dakota Access Pipeline Controversy
The Dakota Access Pipeline project, which transports crude oil across states, sparked widespread protests, particularly at Standing Rock in North Dakota in 2016. This movement involved diverse groups, including indigenous communities and environmental activists, who raised concerns about potential threats to water supplies and sacred lands. The scope and scale of the protests drew national attention, culminating in the recognition of indigenous rights and environmental protection. The protests continued over time, highlighting the community's resolve against corporate interests and corporate-led projects they deemed harmful.
Greenpeace's Involvement in the Protests
Greenpeace's involvement in the Standing Rock protests was primarily supportive and limited, as the movement was overwhelmingly spearheaded by indigenous leaders and activists. The organization contributed by providing non-violence training and resources for awareness campaigns rather than orchestrating the protests. Their claims of orchestrating events at Standing Rock are characterized as unfounded and misleading by activist leaders, emphasizing that the movement was a grassroots effort. This framing attempts to rewrite the narrative of the protests, overshadowing the indigenous-led nature of the resistance and creating an accurate portrayal of their involvement.
The Implications of the Lawsuit Against Greenpeace
Energy Transfer's $300 million lawsuit against Greenpeace marks a more substantial effort to discourage dissenting voices by potentially classifying peaceful protests as illegal activities. The lawsuit not only seeks monetary damages but also raises concerns about the chilling effects on free speech and collective activism. If successful, this legal precedent could threaten the rights of various organizations and activists to speak out against corporate actions. Many fear that such broad lawsuits may set an alarming standard, where peaceful protesters become liable simply for participating in advocacy, fundamentally undermining democratic engagement.
Broader Effects of SLAP Suit Trends
The prevalence of SLAP suits reflects a growing trend of using legal strategies to stifle public opposition across various sectors, extending beyond environmental issues. Many individuals feel the intimidation from these lawsuits, which can suppress them from voicing concerns for fear of financial repercussions. The lack of federal protections against these tactics has led some states to become hotbeds for SLAP litigation, subsequently entrenching the power of corporate entities over public discourse. Advocates argue that stronger anti-SLAP laws are necessary to ensure that everyone has the ability to participate in civil dialogue and protest without the fear of retribution.
Energy Transfer Partners, the company behind the Dakota Access Pipeline, is suing Greenpeace for $300 million. The pipeline company accuses Greenpeace of criminal behavior — trespassing, vandalism, and assault of construction workers — and inciting riotous behavior by protesters at Standing Rock in 2016.
Greenpeace considers this legal action to be a “SLAPP suit” — a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation — aimed at silencing not just Greenpeace, but civil protests everywhere. The trial is just getting underway in Morton County, North Dakota. In this episode we unpack not just this case, but the broader implications of such suits.
Guests:
Rolf Skar, National Campaigns Director, Greenpeace
Montgomery Brown, Member, Standing Rock Grassroots
Laura Prather, Chair of First Amendment Practice, Haynes Boone
On March 24, Google’s Chief Sustainability Officer Kate Brandt and Irina Raicu, Director of the Internet Ethics Program at the Markkula Center, will speak with Climate One about the development of sustainably powered artificial intelligence. Tickets are on sale through our website.
Support Climate One by going ad-free! By subscribing to Climate One on Patreon, you’ll receive exclusive access to all future episodes free of ads, opportunities to connect with fellow Climate One listeners, and access to the Climate One Discord. Sign up today.