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 4 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.

	▲	laughing_man an hour ago \| parent [-]
		In theory, yes. But does that actually happen IRL? I've never heard of a lawyer getting disbarred for the quality of suits he or she is filing. Many years ago in Northern CA we had a lawyer that was basically going around filing suits against everyone she came in contact with as a way to pay the bills. She was eventually declared a "vexatious litigant" and had to get a judge's permission before she could sue anyone in the future, but they didn't disbar her.

▲

southerntofu 4 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 2 hours 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 an hour 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.

▲

terminalshort an hour ago | parent [-]

What does any of that have to do with anything?

> If you want to insist that only greedy corporations could have made portable hand-held network connected computing devices possible, then make that point.

It burns oil and emits CO2. Doesn't matter who makes it or if they are "greedy." Physics doesn't care about human emotions.

> 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.

It burns oil and emits CO2. Physics doesn't care about accounting.

> 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.

It burns oil and emits CO2. It doesn't matter what the price to the end user is or who liability. Physics does not care about lawyers.

> 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.

If your criticism is about global warming, then yes it is a wining argument because the organizations are irrelevant. It burns oil and emits CO2. Physics doesn't care about human organizations.

▲

PaulDavisThe1st an hour ago | parent [-]

The GP made an observation about "greedy corporations".

You sarcastically wrote

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

as if using any of those technologies means that you have no standing to criticize "greedy corporations".

I've pointed out the (potential) disconnect between the technologies and the corporations, and you've now wandered off into "fossil fuels do stuff, physics matters" which of course is true but as before, has nothing to do with someone criticizing what they see as/claim are "greedy corporations".

	▲	terminalshort 19 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Nice try, but I'm not stupid enough to fall for your deflection. GP did not complain about "greedy corporations." He complained about "greedy corporations destroying our planet." They aren't destroying our planet. You, GP, and I are destroying our planet. But unlike you and GP, I am an adult and I don't try to blame other people for my actions.