SLAPP 101
Last month, a North Dakota jury found Greenpeace liable in a civil lawsuit filed by Energy Transfer Partners, owner of the Dakota Access Pipeline, and awarded $660 million in damages. Earlier this month, Greenpeace filed a motion to reduce the jury award. The international advocacy group has also said that it will appeal.
Energy Transfer’s claim against Greenpeace is commonly referred to as a SLAPP suit, a strategic lawsuit against public participation. In SLAPP suits, people who organize and speak out on behalf of a community issue suddenly find themselves facing a civil action—a strategy deployed against community advocates that dates back decades. Because the main purpose of a SLAPP is to force activists and advocates to spend time and resources in court, many states have laws or judicial doctrine to limit those claims. However, North Dakota is among 15 remaining states that lack such legal protections.
A recent essay by a pair of Vanderbilt law professors explains how these lawsuits are used to intimidate critics and suppress free speech (and they include a link to John Oliver’s excellent video explainer).
In this particular case, Energy Transfer claimed that it lost financing for its project after Greenpeace sent letters to banks saying its pipeline project “desecrated tribal burial grounds and important cultural sites.” The company did not sue the Native American communities that lead the protests at Standing Rock.
Greenpeace says the verdict means that the right to protest is on trial, an assessment that is shared by other advocacy groups.
The next hearing is scheduled for May 15 in Morton County District Court.
News Distortion
Using the written comments of former commissioners as a springboard, Ars Technica published an excellent, in-depth look at how Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr is reviving a 1960s-era policy to punish the media.
From 1969 to 1985, the FCC issued findings in seven cases of news distortion. Since 1985, there’s been only one finding.
By reinstating recent news distortion complaints from the boutique law firm that calls itself the Center for American Rights, Carr has already reversed the agency’s longstanding practices, bypassing tough criteria needed to begin an investigation. In addition, the center’s complaint argues that the FCC needs a new, expansive approach to regulating news distortion—enough so that the investigations have alarmed conservative and progressive groups alike.
This FCC Actions Alert is produced by the volunteers at the Community Media Assistance Project. We monitor many sources of information about the Federal Communications Commission, federal communications law, and community developments important to your station and your community. The information provided in this newsletter is for general informational purposes only and should not be considered as financial or legal advice. Always consult with a qualified professional before making any decisions based on the content herein. If you have a news tip, please email us at betty@c-map.org.
Communications Act of 1934, Sect. 326.
Nothing in this Act shall be understood or construed to give the Commission the power of censorship over the radio communications or signals transmitted by any radio station, and no regulation or condition shall be promulgated or fixed by the Commission which shall interfere with the right of free speech by means of radio communication.