21–30 of 245 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rough jury pool. 75.36% for Trump in the latest election, and one presumes a lot of energy sector employment.
Maybe? The judge, and the lawyers involved have the right to reject jurors that might prejudice a trail.
> Greenpeace maintains it only had six employees visit the protest camps, and that all worked for Greenpeace USA, not Greenpeace Fund or Greenpeace International. > The jury found Greenpeace USA liable for almost all claims. how does this happen? did greenepeace just run a bad trial? or lose all public trust?
SLAPP as in Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. To keep the dissenting voices quiet and to scare other groups from protesting. Modus operandi for many industries.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The claims were for defamation and incitement: > A Morton County jury on Wednesday ordered Greenpeace to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to the developer of the Dakota Access Pipeline, finding that the environmental group incited illegal behavior by anti-pipeline protesters and defamed the company. > The nine-person jury delivered a verdict in favor of Energy Transfer on most counts, awarding more than $660 milli…
Rough jury pool. 75.36% for Trump in the latest election, and one presumes a lot of energy sector employment.
Edit: and considering this was the Southwest district, looking at results by county, 75% seems about right. This isn’t necessarily a biased jury in the sense that selection was unfair, this is probably the makeup you’d get with a fair selection. https://apnews.com/projects/election-results-2024/north-dako...
I think climate change is a massive and real problem. And that we need to wean ourselves off fossil fuels quickly. But I would actually be very happy to see Greenpeace fold as a result of this. I think they’ve been on the wrong side of many important issues, including this one. I think Greenpeace did as much as anybody to turn the world against nuclear power in the late 20th century. And this clearly set us in the wr…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rough jury pool. 75.36% for Trump in the latest election, and one presumes a lot of energy sector employment.
North Dakota voted 67% overall for Trump, this is not too far from being representative of the general population. Considering that anyone who is openly hostile against energy companies is going to be removed during selection I don’t see the jury as the issue. Edit: and considering this was the Southwest district, looking at results by county, 75% seems about right. This isn’t necessarily a biased jury in the sense t…
It can be quite hard to get a jury to go against a locally powerful large employer in a small town.
As one of the few developers based in North Dakota, I was NOT expecting to see ND at the top of hacker news this morning. I lived very close to the protests. I won't comment on the politics but, 2016-2017 was very impactful on the community here.
> Greenpeace maintains it only had six employees visit the protest camps, and that all worked for Greenpeace USA, not Greenpeace Fund or Greenpeace International. > The jury found Greenpeace USA liable for almost all claims. how does this happen? did greenepeace just run a bad trial? or lose all public trust?
Energy Transfer had previously attempted other suits which failed to get any traction because the claims are essentially Trump-style conspiracy theories about who is "pulling the strings" and "paying for" a massive decentralized protest movement. But they got lucky on this one. One of the advantages of having so much money you can just burn it on questionable lawsuits until one succeeds.
I think climate change is a massive and real problem. And that we need to wean ourselves off fossil fuels quickly. But I would actually be very happy to see Greenpeace fold as a result of this. I think they’ve been on the wrong side of many important issues, including this one. I think Greenpeace did as much as anybody to turn the world against nuclear power in the late 20th century. And this clearly set us in the wr…
But restricting supply raises prices and naturally encourages sustainable energy. That kind of change is self reinforcing. Government incentives disappear at the change of every administration.
I think climate change is a massive and real problem. And that we need to wean ourselves off fossil fuels quickly. But I would actually be very happy to see Greenpeace fold as a result of this. I think they’ve been on the wrong side of many important issues, including this one. I think Greenpeace did as much as anybody to turn the world against nuclear power in the late 20th century. And this clearly set us in the wr…
> I think Greenpeace did as much as anybody to turn the world against nuclear power in the late 20th century. And this clearly set us in the wrong direction as far as reducing reliance on fossil fuels. I don't have much time for Greenpeace. Much of their activism has never been science based, and usually involves criminal acts against property. History will not be kind to them. Their only highlight is 'saving' the wh…