Greenpeace Found Liable for Defamation and Other Claims
MANDAN, N.D. (AP) — A North Dakota jury on Wednesday found Greenpeace liable for defamation and other claims brought by a Dallas-based pipeline company in connection with protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline.
The nine-person jury awarded Energy Transfer and its subsidiary Dakota Access hundreds of millions of dollars in damages.
The Lawsuit and Its Claims
The lawsuit had accused Netherlands-based Greenpeace International, Greenpeace USA and funding arm Greenpeace Fund Inc. of defamation, trespass, nuisance, civil conspiracy and other acts.
Following the verdict, Greenpeace’s senior legal adviser said the organization’s work “is never going stop.”
“That’s the really important message today, and we’re just walking out and we’re going to get together and figure out what our next steps are,” Deepa Padmanabha said.
Reaction to the Verdict
The organization said it plans to appeal the decision.
Energy Transfer called the verdict a “win” for residents of Mandan, N.D., and across the state.
“While we are pleased that Greenpeace has been held accountable for their actions against us, this win is really for the people of Mandan and throughout North Dakota who had to live through the daily harassment and disruptions caused by the protesters who were funded and trained by Greenpeace,” the company said in a statement to The Associated Press.
The company, which previously said the lawsuit was about Greenpeace not following the law and not free speech, also called the verdict a win for “Americans who understand the difference between the right to free speech and breaking the law.”
The Background of the Case
The case reaches back to protests in 2016 and 2017 against the Dakota Access oil pipeline and its Missouri River crossing upstream of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s reservation. For years the tribe has opposed the line as a risk to its water supply. The multistate pipeline has been transporting oil since mid-2017.
Claims and Counterclaims
Plaintiffs’ attorney Trey Cox has said Greenpeace carried out a scheme to stop the pipeline’s construction. During opening statements, he alleged Greenpeace paid outsiders to come into the area and protest, sent blockade supplies, organized or led protester trainings and made untrue statements about the project to stop it.
Attorneys for the Greenpeace entities said there is no evidence to the claims, that Greenpeace employees had little or no involvement in the protests and the organizations had nothing to do with Energy Transfer’s delays in construction or refinancing.
Implications of the Verdict
Greenpeace representatives have said the lawsuit is a critical test of First Amendment free speech and protest rights and could threaten the organization’s future.
By JACK DURA with the Associated Press
Conclusion
The verdict in the case against Greenpeace has significant implications for the organization and its future. The lawsuit has been seen as a critical test of First Amendment free speech and protest rights, and the outcome could have far-reaching consequences for environmental and social justice movements.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: What was the verdict in the case against Greenpeace?
A: The jury found Greenpeace liable for defamation and other claims brought by Energy Transfer and awarded hundreds of millions of dollars in damages.
Q: What were the claims made against Greenpeace in the lawsuit?
A: The lawsuit accused Greenpeace of defamation, trespass, nuisance, civil conspiracy and other acts in connection with protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline.
Q: How has Greenpeace responded to the verdict?
A: Greenpeace has said it plans to appeal the decision and that its work will not stop despite the verdict.
Q: What are the implications of the verdict for Greenpeace and its future?
A: The verdict could threaten the organization’s future and has significant implications for environmental and social justice movements, as it has been seen as a critical test of First Amendment free speech and protest rights.
