SLAPPs Against Climate Activists Surge Across Europe; Environmental Suits 2nd Only To Corruption Probes

[hatrack]

Lawsuits to silence those speaking out and fighting in the interest of the public are increasingly being used as a form of private censorship, according to a new report published last week by the Coalition Against SLAPPS in Europe, or CASE. Developed in collaboration with the Daphne Caruana Galizia Foundation, the report shows that SLAPPs continue to rise in Europe and identifies a total of 1,049 cases between 2010-2023. The lawsuits cover a broad range of topics, and environmental issues made up the second-most-targeted subject of all the SLAPP suits reported, behind corruption.

The report identified SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) in 41 countries across the continent, including Italy, Greece, the Netherlands, Poland, the UK, and Ukraine. Globally big oil, big ag, and other corporate interests have filed lawsuits against individuals and groups who advocate for environmental and climate protection and attempt to hold key players accountable.

In the UK, Shell and the platform builder Fluor sued Greenpeace in November 2023 following the group’s occupation of Shell’s North Sea oil production platform. The suit seeks $8.6 million in damages and a protest ban. In Poland, gas operator Gaz System S.A. sued an environmental activist for defamation in 2022 for writing an article on an anti-gas protest against the company. In South Africa, Ikwezi Coal Mining Company started criminal legal proceedings for intimidation and assault against activist Lucky Shabalala in 2019.

This is the world of SLAPPs, “a form of an abusive lawsuit,” according to Charlie Holt, European Lead at the organisation Global Climate Legal Defense (CliDef) and part of CASE’s steering committee. “That means journalists, activists, whistleblowers, sometimes academics, and the way [SLAPPs] operate is exactly the same [across cases]; that’s why you’ll see that your average SLAPP will try to isolate and target individuals,” Holt explained. “We started to see an increase in the last couple of years in the use of SLAPPs by fossil fuel companies in Europe,” Holt said, explaining that the growth in political polarization and populism around the world influenced this rise. With populist governments on the march in Europe (and now in the U.S. with Donald Trump’s presidential nomination), companies “don’t seem as concerned” about potential backlash from attacking individual activists, journalists, or campaign organizations today.

EDIT

The objective of a SLAPP is not necessarily to win the case, but to intimidate and deter activists and journalists from making information known to the public, according to the European Parliament, which in April this year adopted anti-SLAPP directives to protect against legal action that “silences critical voices.”

EDIT

https://www.desmog.com/2024/12/17/new-case-report-shows-a-surge-in-european-slapp-suits-as-fossil-fuel-industry-works-to-obstruct-climate-action/

[Think. Again.]

1. If I were a fossil fuel shareholder...

...I would be pretty angry at the company for spending these exorbitant amounts on intimidation lawsuits and the disemination of misinformation, instead of using that money to nail down a leading position in the supply of non-CO2 energy.

[Trexmaster]

2. Cost of doing business

No, I don't think so.

This is just the allotted costs in the budget for doing business, with this including – besides the budget for [legalized] bribery in politics – the costs (again, legalized bribes in a sense, paying the salaries so to speak) for lawyers, judges, and whomever to pinch a lil' more the nipple for some green milk. The command center are pleased with the ruckus, the agitators are pleased they're still affording their costs for existing, and whoever else benefits from public hysteria.

It's a business! And what an ugly one...

In some ways, NGOs have definitely perfected the art of [attempted] blackmail, whether if they're commanded at the political level, or secret services level, or foreign intervention levels.

It's just ugly, the ooze part of what makes our world miserable, in a way. Yet it works because others are being paid.

The way I see it, this is just a veiled war, between the stinkin' rich and the stinkin' ruffians. Each 'n one has their own holier-than-thou message that works for whoever adds the clicks & viewership.
When I heard of SLAPP, it was about censorship by Ruzzians (and we all know how they are), yet now it becomes another stupid front for those that can benefit from.