[thecrash]

This case is not important because of Greenpeace, it's important because of the implications for free speech in the US. They are not being bankrupted because they took the wrong stance on nuclear, they're being bankrupted for supposed defamation and incitement against a major energy corporation.

This is a precedent that will be used to attack all kinds of civil society organizations when they threaten the profits of major corporate interests. Including the civil society organizations which you do agree with.

[Ekaros]

Isn't this just the often repeated "free speech does not mean freedom from consequences". So this is exactly what left wants. They are not prevented from saying things. They just lose money over them. As free speech only applies to state preventing from things being said.

[stackedinserter]

What does setting things on fire have to do with freedom of speech?

[oofbey]

I think this is how it goes: The people who set things on fire weren't directly associated with Greenpeace. But the argument is that Greenpeace's rhetoric incited them to do so. So it becomes a freedom of speech issue. If you tell people something is evil and must be burned, are you responsible for that thing getting torched?

[stackedinserter]

The Hutus that committed genocide in Rwanda were not directly associated with that radio host that called for murders, yet he's a criminal.

[oofbey]

I think our society would be better off if everybody did less incitement in their political dialogue. It's become all too common for political discourse to become unhinged. So in that sense, I think this precedent is also fine.