They specifically weren't found liable for on the ground activity, so the fact that only six employees were on the ground seems like a bit of a red herring.

> how does this happen? did greenepeace just run a bad trial? or lose all public trust?

Alternative possibility: they were actually guilty. Seems likely. The idea that Greenpeace was intentionally spreading misinformation doesn't require a big leap of faith.

▲

jacquesm 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Unlike oil companies who would of course never do such a thing.

▲

lkbm 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

They sure do. They've also been sued for it, too, because it's bad. It's also bad for Greenpeace to do it.

▲

jacquesm 4 hours ago | parent [-]

There is absolutely no way the damage is that large and this seems to be mostly a revenge action by a community in which Greenpeace - or any other environmental organization - would never get a fair trial to begin with.

	▲	terminalshort 4 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		The article doesn't mention it, but it could be punitive damages

▲

b112 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The climate can't sue if you lie about it.

Companies and people can.

▲

SpicyLemonZest 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> They specifically weren't found liable for on the ground activity, so the fact that only six employees were on the ground seems like a bit of a red herring.

I think that's not what the article is saying, although I read it that way too at first. Greenpeace USA, the organization whose six employees were on the ground, was found liable for "almost all claims"; it's only Greenpeace International and Greenpeace Fund, their sibling organizations, who were found not to be "responsible for the alleged on-the-ground harms committed by protesters".

	▲	lkbm 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Ah, good catch. I misread.