Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Judge finalizes order for Greenpeace to pay $345M in ND oil pipeline case

northdakotamonitor.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 245 posts

Re: Judge finalizes order for Greenpeace to pay $345M in ND oil pipeline case

#151

Post by IAmBroom »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #111
some_random wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're a bunch of lifetime activists who spun up an authoritative sounding NGO that has done literally nothing else, but yeah muh corruption.

Oil companies have been suppressing climate change research for decades to keep cooking the earth for profits. Is that not corruption? I suppose if you are economically exposed to these gains, don’t believe in climate change, and/or won’t be here for the bad times from this, the facts may not matter to your mental model. The facts remain that climate change is real and oil companies are doing their best to extract ev…

You are literally avoiding the topic (Greenpeace intentionally created a misleading authoritative-looking entity) to say "Oil bad! Boo oil companies!".

The facts remain that Greenpeace did in fact attempt to slander (legal definition) the big oil corp.

Maybe you support "win at all costs" in this fight, but don't pretend one side is pure and honest.

Re: Judge finalizes order for Greenpeace to pay $345M in ND oil pipeline case

#152

Post by IAmBroom »

magicalist wrote: post #100
rayiner wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The protests involved what activists call “direct action,” which involves trespassing on private property, blockading workers, or damaging equipment in an effort to prevent otherwise lawful activity. For example, activists admitted to setting fire to equipment and pipeline valves in an effort to stop construction: https://www.kcci.com/article/2-women-admit-to-causing-damage... . That’s legally straightforward conduct…

> The legal issue here is that there should be a very high bar for saying that first amendment protected speech amounts to incitement. But that’s not a principle of law as far as I’m aware. I don't understand the distinction you're making here. Isn't there being a high bar for saying that first amendment protected speech amounts to incitement literally a principle of modern first amendment law (Brandenburg etc)? > So…

It's not protected speech to direct illegal action from afar, so it doesn't matter one whit if Greenpeace was there six times or six thousand or zero.

Re: Judge finalizes order for Greenpeace to pay $345M in ND oil pipeline case

#153

Post by jacquesm »

newsoftheday wrote: post #128
kombine wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The protests involved what activists call “direct action,” which involves trespassing on private property, blockading workers, or damaging equipment in an effort to prevent otherwise lawful activity. For example, activists admitted to setting fire to equipment and pipeline valves in an effort to stop construction Decades and centuries from now our descendants will be dealing with the consequences of the destroyed c…

> "the laws" We live under law or we die under anarchy.

There are many other reasons that can kill you under the law besides anarchy, one of those is climate change and GP definitely has a very valid point.

Clearly the 'drill-baby-drill' crowd doesn't like Greenpeace at all and is doing what they can to muzzle activists because they know that if they manage to squelch Greenpeace then many lesser funded organizations will not be able to do anything all all. But history doesn't give a damn about any of that.

Re: Judge finalizes order for Greenpeace to pay $345M in ND oil pipeline case

#154

Post by [deleted] »

IAmBroom wrote: post #151
toomuchtodo wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oil companies have been suppressing climate change research for decades to keep cooking the earth for profits. Is that not corruption? I suppose if you are economically exposed to these gains, don’t believe in climate change, and/or won’t be here for the bad times from this, the facts may not matter to your mental model. The facts remain that climate change is real and oil companies are doing their best to extract ev…

You are literally avoiding the topic (Greenpeace intentionally created a misleading authoritative-looking entity) to say "Oil bad! Boo oil companies!". The facts remain that Greenpeace did in fact attempt to slander (legal definition) the big oil corp. Maybe you support "win at all costs" in this fight, but don't pretend one side is pure and honest.

[deleted]

Re: Judge finalizes order for Greenpeace to pay $345M in ND oil pipeline case

#155

Post by RickJWagner »

cucumber3732842 wrote: post #104
hotstickyballs wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Direct action is literally their policy

And in this case the jury found them on the hook to pay for the results. I'm not sure what they were expecting. Direct action agains an oil pipeline in ND is gonna go over about as well as direct action tourism in Florida. If by some miracle you get a judge sympathetic to your cause you won't get a jury that is. The local people want this industry, generally speaking.

That’s very true.

The frozen plains of North Dakota aren’t worth much without oil. With oil, they provide good paying jobs to people who otherwise won’t have them.

I lived in the next state south for many years. Oil is definitely popular with the people of North Dakota.

Re: Judge finalizes order for Greenpeace to pay $345M in ND oil pipeline case

#156

Post by reenorap »

triceratops wrote: post #141
reenorap wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what you mean. I think we are saying the same thing. The strategy to use Texas Two Step failed in 2025 and J&J gave up, and now they are going back to the regular way of resolving the litigation.

The thread we're in started with the discussion of fraudulent transfers: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47220263 You said the Texas Two Step can't be used for fraudulent transfers (or at least, that's how I interpreted) and offered J&J's case as an example. My reply to that is J&J's Texas Two Step failed for a different reason, unrelated to fraudulent transfers.

No.

My OP said that Texas Two step was used all the time. I said J&J tried to use Texas Two Step and it ultimately failed. And yes it did fail mostly because it was not being used in good faith.

Re: Judge finalizes order for Greenpeace to pay $345M in ND oil pipeline case

#157

Post by terminalshort »

southerntofu wrote: post #115
some_random wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is objectively not what happened here though, the point of SLAPP is that it's a frivolous suit that's meant to just exhaust the resources of the "dissenting voices". They won this suit and honestly it's not hard to believe that Greenpeace is guilty to some degree even if proving it is.

Well it is very hard to believe they're guilty, at least to me. Too bad the news report does not provide any actual information about the case and the evidence (actual journalism beyond clickbaity headlines). In environmental circles, Greenpeace is very well-known to be traitors working with big corporations to launder their image. They're opposed to sabotage and revolutionary tactics. Their activities are mostly fun…

[flagged]

Re: Judge finalizes order for Greenpeace to pay $345M in ND oil pipeline case

#158

Post by kristjansson »

whywhywhywhy wrote: post #68
foolfoolz wrote: post #3

> 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?

> Greenpeace USA, not Greenpeace Fund or Greenpeace International Why is something like this allowed to exist... Stacking entities and funneling wealth around in the guise of a noble cause.

We need David Macaulay to add a book on corporate structures to his repertoire. Any organization operating at anywhere close to household-name scale is a collection of cooperating legal entities.

Re: Judge finalizes order for Greenpeace to pay $345M in ND oil pipeline case

#159

Post by ckrapu »

RickJWagner wrote: post #155
cucumber3732842 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And in this case the jury found them on the hook to pay for the results. I'm not sure what they were expecting. Direct action agains an oil pipeline in ND is gonna go over about as well as direct action tourism in Florida. If by some miracle you get a judge sympathetic to your cause you won't get a jury that is. The local people want this industry, generally speaking.

That’s very true. The frozen plains of North Dakota aren’t worth much without oil. With oil, they provide good paying jobs to people who otherwise won’t have them. I lived in the next state south for many years. Oil is definitely popular with the people of North Dakota.

With all due respect, I disagree.

I loved the winters. I loved the people. I loved how its natural beauty was subtle and rewarded the patient, unlike El Capitan or the Black Hills. The economy was fine before oil appeared.

Re: Judge finalizes order for Greenpeace to pay $345M in ND oil pipeline case

#160

Post by realreality »

some_random wrote: post #90
threethirtytwo wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s too late. Look at the science. Also I never mentioned just give up. I just said it’s already too late. That’s reality. What you do next is your choice. But don’t put words in my mouth.

It's never too late, that's not what "the science" says it's what the clickbait vulture news bullshit you're reading is saying. The real science on the matter is that every day things get just a little bit worse, and every improvement makes things just a little bit better. There's no magic cliff, no point of no return, just one day after another.

There are tipping points, when warming accelerates and becomes irreversible.

There’s some debate in “the science” about how quickly we’ll reach that point. Limiting warming to +2°C was not a scientific position; it was political, based on what people thought was achievable. Before the Paris Agreement, 2° was not considered “safe”.

Anyway, it turns out we’re going to zoom past 2° in the next couple of decades.

Post reply on HN