SLAPP lawsuits are another tool in the corporate toolbox to effectively suppress the average citizen's free speech. The Native Americans at Thacker Pass are not average citizens. They are the victims of genocide and destruction of their culture, among the poorest people in the nation. This mine is yet another crime against humanity, a predictor for all environmental fights for a planet that can continue to support human life.
In a typical SLAPP, the plaintiff does not normally expect to win the lawsuit. The plaintiff's goals are accomplished if the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs, or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism. In some cases, repeated frivolous litigation against a defendant may raise the cost of directors and officers liability insurance for that party, interfering with an organization's ability to operate.[4] A SLAPP may also intimidate others from participating in the debate. A SLAPP is often preceded by a legal threat. SLAPPs bring about freedom of speech concerns due to their chilling effect and are often difficult to filter out and penalize because the plaintiffs attempt to obfuscate their intent to censor, intimidate, or silence their critics.
Thanks Geoff. You're completely right. This case doesn't fall squarely into a SLAPP categorization, but many of the characteristics — and the intent — are certainly there.
Thanks for sharing, Edwina! There are some parallels but our situation is quite different, legally speaking. But we've been following that case, regardless. I'll check my LinkedIn.
John Livingston wrote in The Fallacy of Wildlife Conservation, “On the basis of some experience in conservation affairs, I am at last persuaded that mere argument as such is entirely worthless...Argument, it seems to me, is never going to help wildlife. It rarely has, and there is little to persuade me that it ever will, appreciably...I believe that wildlife preservation is entirely dependent on individual human experience.”
SLAPP lawsuits are another tool in the corporate toolbox to effectively suppress the average citizen's free speech. The Native Americans at Thacker Pass are not average citizens. They are the victims of genocide and destruction of their culture, among the poorest people in the nation. This mine is yet another crime against humanity, a predictor for all environmental fights for a planet that can continue to support human life.
In a typical SLAPP, the plaintiff does not normally expect to win the lawsuit. The plaintiff's goals are accomplished if the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs, or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism. In some cases, repeated frivolous litigation against a defendant may raise the cost of directors and officers liability insurance for that party, interfering with an organization's ability to operate.[4] A SLAPP may also intimidate others from participating in the debate. A SLAPP is often preceded by a legal threat. SLAPPs bring about freedom of speech concerns due to their chilling effect and are often difficult to filter out and penalize because the plaintiffs attempt to obfuscate their intent to censor, intimidate, or silence their critics.
Thanks Geoff. You're completely right. This case doesn't fall squarely into a SLAPP categorization, but many of the characteristics — and the intent — are certainly there.
So heartbreaking, thank you so much for your work.
It wasn't on my to-do list to get sued. But, this is the path I've chosen and who knows what the future will hold? Thanks for the support, Forest!
Hi Max, reading this article about Greenpeace defending a similar SLAPP suit in North Dakota made me think of you - not sure if this is helpful. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/20/climate/greenpeace-dakota-access-lawsuit-slapp.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Fk4.8e7z.OoRXXXk80aHH&smid=url-share
Be great to connect on LinkedIn to share things like this with you there.
Thanks for sharing, Edwina! There are some parallels but our situation is quite different, legally speaking. But we've been following that case, regardless. I'll check my LinkedIn.
thank you!
Thanks, Cindy. I totally agree.
John Livingston wrote in The Fallacy of Wildlife Conservation, “On the basis of some experience in conservation affairs, I am at last persuaded that mere argument as such is entirely worthless...Argument, it seems to me, is never going to help wildlife. It rarely has, and there is little to persuade me that it ever will, appreciably...I believe that wildlife preservation is entirely dependent on individual human experience.”