[rayiner]

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 outside 1A protections.

The more tenuous thing here is proving Greenpeace incited people to do that. Without having seen the evidence, I’m guessing there were internal documents that were bad for Greenpeace. Activist organizations sometimes adopt pretty militant rhetoric in an effort to get protesters fired up. I bet these internal documents could seem sinister to a jury of ordinary people.

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. So any organization that adopts this militant posture for marketing reasons (which is a lot of them these days) could run the risk of that being used against them if any of the protesters end up damaging or destroying property.

[magicalist]

> 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 any organization that adopts this militant posture for marketing reasons (which is a lot of them these days) could run the risk of that being used against them if any of the protesters end up damaging or destroying property.

Even the way you write this makes it sound like you know it's problematic too.

[rayiner]

The exact issue in Brandenburg was about how specific the speech has to be. Broadly saying people should do stuff is different from advocating specific illegal conduct against a specific target. That’s harder to apply here because there’s a specific target. The issue here is more: how influential does the speech need to be on the people who actually took the illegal action. I think the standard should be so high you would need some sort of vicarious liability. Like you hired people to set fires.

> Even the way you write this makes it sound like you know it's problematic too.

That was intentional.

[IAmBroom]

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.

[kombine]

> 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 climate and wonder why we punished the only people who tried to do something about it while justifying it by "the laws".

[newsoftheday]

> "the laws"

We live under law or we die under anarchy.

[jacquesm]

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.

[scarecrowbob]

Ironically, a lot of the folks I've known sitting in trees might hold that the NGOs soak up resources and actions and basically prevent material and direct action.

The hyper-local point of that is how my buddies haven't taken grinders to the flock cameras because there is a local de-flocked group who is trying to exhaust legal actions before moving on to other options. But it's not like that kind of direct action is thought of as unethical by a lot of us, even if it's legibly illegal.

And regardless of what a person thinks about the direct action, the (very separate) idea that these larger, legal, above-ground groups are what keep folks who have very strong "feelings" from acting is a position held by folks on all sides of these things. That strategy seems central to the neo-liberal method of dealing with social unrest.

In that ecosystem, if you kill off the big NGOs you might see a thousand tiny and headless ELFs bloom.

If the post-neo-liberal (god what a shitty turn of phrase, sorry) strategy looks like "ICE", then good luck to them; the 3000:100000 ratio didn't go well in Minneapolis and as more folks start looking at how we didn't have a winter at all where I live (it's 65 degrees this week at almost 7000' in SW Colorado and the ground frost has broken) then that strategy might be subjected to reality.

[thunderfork]

You can die under law, too.

[renewiltord]

Little known fact is that you can die over law too.

[rolandog]

Let's not drape ourselves in lobbyist-ammended laws too fast now; laws are the source code, in a way, of societies. They lay down the things we value, and what we are willing to do to protect them. These last few decades, a corporate coup has taken place, and we find ourselves with goons making probably illegal changes at the behest of billionaires (or at that of the people that are blackmailing them because they're likely in "the files").

So, whose law do you find so precious that you're willing to die in anarchy for?

P.S.: Laws are actually more like new years resolutions for a society; you gotta follow through with eating the rich (enforcement), or else you get a bad case of conventus secretus which may eventually lead to acute homines fascistae

[rayiner]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDBiLT3LASk

[hotstickyballs]

Direct action is literally their policy

[cucumber3732842]

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.

[RickJWagner]

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.

[ckrapu]

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.

[NewJazz]

https://www.dmr.nd.gov/dmr/news/studies-underscore-oil-and-g...

[ckrapu]

My point is not that oil fails to generate revenue. Clearly it is a lucrative business. Instead, my claim is that the state economy was remarkably robust, productive, healthy, and well-optimized for middle class quality of life pre-2007.

Does it sound surprising to you that it was perfectly normal to rent a perfect acceptable two bedroom apartment in a safe town on the interstate for $300 a month and still easily find dignified, decent paying jobs without 1000 applications?

I've lived in many cities and work in tech now, and I can confidently say that, as it concerns the professions and jobs that unambiguously sustain and improve life, no community on the planet was more productive than my home state. There is more to the story than some shale.

[deaux]

"Studies underscore cocaine's significant impact on Colombia's economy"

Snort another line while you're at it.

[RickJWagner]

I see you speak in the past tense. So you’ve moved away, in spite of your love for the winters?

[cucumber3732842]

>I loved the winters. I loved the people.

My pet theory based on personal observation is that there's a strong inverse correlation between nature trying to destroy your shit and insufferable people.

[casey2]

It's more that they paid $20K for "direct action training"