Greenpeace is currently embroiled in a legal battle against Energy Transfer, which has sued the environmental organization for $300 million. The lawsuit alleges defamation and claims that Greenpeace orchestrated criminal behavior by protesters at the Dakota Access Pipeline during the 2016 and 2017 demonstrations. This high-stakes trial is taking place in North Dakota and holds significant implications for non-profit organizations and First Amendment rights.
Energy Transfer, the company behind the Dakota Access Pipeline, has accused Greenpeace of inciting various misdeeds and disruptions that occurred during the protests. However, Greenpeace has consistently maintained that its role in the protests was minimal and conducted at the request of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. The organization asserts that all its actions were grounded in non-violence, a principle it upholds in every campaign it undertakes.
"What we saw over these three weeks was Energy Transfer’s blatant disregard for the voices of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. And while they also tried to distort the truth about Greenpeace’s role in the protests, we instead reaffirmed our unwavering commitment to non-violence in every action we take," said Deepa Padmanabha, Greenpeace's senior legal adviser.
The trial against Greenpeace is being watched closely by both the wider non-profit community and First Amendment experts due to its potential impact on public advocacy and free speech. Greenpeace has expressed concern about receiving a fair hearing in a region dominated by gas and oil interests. The organization has warned that a loss, coupled with a substantial financial judgment, could potentially bankrupt its US operations.
"Today’s verdict is not a reflection of wrongdoing on Greenpeace’s part, but rather the result of a long list of courtroom tactics and propaganda tricks that Energy Transfer used to deny Greenpeace its right to a fair trial," commented Kirk Herbertson, reflecting the sentiments of many observers.
Greenpeace alleges that mysterious right-wing mailers were distributed to residents in North Dakota, potentially tainting the jury pool. Moreover, they claim Energy Transfer attempted to offer financial incentives to the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe to cease their protests, which the tribe reportedly declined. These tactics have led Greenpeace to believe that there are significant flaws in their trial process.
"In my six decades of legal practice, I have never witnessed a trial as unfair as the one against Greenpeace that just ended in the courts of North Dakota," stated Marty Garbus, highlighting concerns over the fairness of the proceedings.
Despite facing a challenging legal environment, Greenpeace remains determined to continue its fight for fundamental rights. The organization believes it has a strong case on appeal and vows to persist in advocating for free speech and peaceful protest.
"Energy Transfer hasn’t heard the last of us in this fight. We’re just getting started with our anti-SLAPP [strategic lawsuits against public participation] lawsuit against Energy Transfer’s attacks on free speech and peaceful protest," declared Kristin Casper, Greenpeace's general counsel.
The trial monitoring committee also released a statement after the verdict, describing the trial as "deeply flawed" and claiming it denied Greenpeace the opportunity to present a full defense. This sentiment resonates with those concerned about maintaining democratic rights in activism.
"We should all be concerned about the future of the first amendment, and lawsuits like these aimed at destroying our rights to peaceful protest and free speech," emphasized Padmanabha.
The outcome of this lawsuit holds significant implications not only for Greenpeace but also for other advocacy groups that rely on peaceful protest as a means to bring about change. As Greenpeace navigates through this legal challenge, it remains steadfast in its commitment to defending environmental and human rights.