Judge tosses suit against Greenpeace
A logging company’s lawsuit accusing Greenpeace and another environmental group of libel and racketeering for describing the company as a “forest destroyer” was dismissed Monday by a San Francisco federal judge, who said the organizations were exercising their freedom of speech.
Resolute Forest Products alleged that Greenpeace and a Bay Area nonprofit called Stand had engaged in a “disinformation campaign,” starting in 2012, about the company’s logging in the boreal forest of northern and western Canada to boost their own fundraising.
The company said Greenpeace had to retract its initial claim that its logging had violated the terms of an environmental agreement, and had falsely accused Resolute of endangering caribou in an area where the company did little logging. Greenpeace also labeled Resolute as a “forest destroyer” even though it logs only a small part of the forest, the company said.
Overall, the company said in its lawsuit, Greenpeace has published “whopping lies ... misrepresenting Resolute’s harvesting as a major climate change risk.”
The company filed its suit in May 2016 in federal court in Georgia, but a judge there transferred the case to San Francisco, finding that it was closely connected to events and organizations in the Bay Area. On Monday, U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar dismissed the case and ordered Resolute Forest Products to reimburse the environmental groups for their attorneys’ fees and court costs.
Under U.S. Supreme Court rulings, a “public figure” who is suing for libel must prove not only that another person’s statements were false and damaging, but also that they were knowingly or recklessly false. Tigar said Resolute Forest Products, which describes itself as the world’s largest producer of newsprint, is a “public figure” in the lumber industry, and had failed to offer evidence of lies or reckless falsehoods by the environmental groups.
At most, Tigar said, the company alleged that Greenpeace relied on inaccurate photos in wrongly accusing the company of violating the environmental agreement. The “forest destroyer” label is commonplace hyperbole, not a literal accusation, the judge said, and other contested statements by the environmentalists are based on their own scientific research.
“The academy, and not the courthouse, is the appropriate place to resolve scientific disagreements,” Tigar said. He also said the company’s complaints about Greenpeace’s fundraising were misplaced, since any deceptive tactics would have affected only the donors.
The judge said Resolute could try to meet his objections by rewriting its lawsuit. Attorney Michael Bowe said the company will “correct those purported deficiencies” and “proceed with the case.”
The company is wasting its time, said Daniel Brindis of Greenpeace USA.
“It is time for Resolute to finally work with environmental organizations, including Greenpeace, to address their destructive forestry operations and forge a sustainable and collaborative path forward,” he said.