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.

terminalshort 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

A SLAPP is a frivolous lawsuit that the plaintiff has no chance of winning. In this case they won a judgment, so it's the opposite of that.

	▲	PaulDavisThe1st 6 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		That's not technically what a SLAPP is. The reason it is called a strategic lawsuit is frequently that it will cost the defendant so much to defend themselves that they opt to settle rather than risk that cost. Even if the plaintiff is unlikely to win, it is rarely a "no chance" situation, and with judge/district shopping, it is quite possible for large corporations to move further from "no chance" than an individual or non-profit might.

▲

some_random 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

▲

mullingitover 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> the point of SLAPP is that it's a frivolous suit

The point is to shut people up. Lawyers don't like filing literally frivolous suits, that type of activity gets you disbarred.

▲

southerntofu 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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 fundraising and legal proceedings, and on the rare instance they perform so-called civil disobedience (such as deploying banners on nuclear plants), it is in very orderly fashion that doesn't provide much economic harm.

As a left-wing environmentalist, i wish such a strong voice as Greenpeace was capable to incite people to rise against the greedy corporations destroying our planet. I just don't see that happening, neither here in France nor in the USA.

▲

terminalshort 35 minutes ago | parent [-]

> i wish such a strong voice as Greenpeace was capable to incite people to rise against the greedy corporations destroying our planet.

Posted from your iphone while driving to the gas station to fill up? Where did you fly to for your last vacation?

	▲	PaulDavisThe1st a minute ago \| parent [-]
		Not this tired nonsense again. Contrasting specific technological and social artifacts with a form of economic organization and legal structures without noting how different they are is a cheap and weak form of argument. If you want to insist that only greedy corporations could have made portable hand-held network connected computing devices possible, then make that point. If you want to insist that there could be no automobile or refueling system without a system in which corporate profits primarily are directed towards capital rather than labor, then make that point. If you find it impossible that powered flight would exist at a price where most people could afford it without specific laws controlling corporate liability and legal fiduciary responsibility, than make that point. But "ah, so you use human-created technology while criticizing the organizations that make it" isn't really the winning argument that you appear to think it is.

▲

magicalist 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> SLAPP as in Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.

Unfortunately North Dakota is one of the minority of states without anti-SLAPP laws.

▲

shrubby 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

https://www.the-case.eu/latest/number-of-slapps-in-europe-co...