Hacker News Reader

Comment by lkbm | Hacker News Reader

They specifically weren't found liable for on the ground activity, so the fact that only six employees were on the ground seems like a bit of a red herring.

> how does this happen? did greenepeace just run a bad trial? or lose all public trust?

Alternative possibility: they were actually guilty. Seems likely. The idea that Greenpeace was intentionally spreading misinformation doesn't require a big leap of faith.

View on HN

> They specifically weren't found liable for on the ground activity, so the fact that only six employees were on the ground seems like a bit of a red herring.

I think that's not what the article is saying, although I read it that way too at first. Greenpeace USA, the organization whose six employees were on the ground, was found liable for "almost all claims"; it's only Greenpeace International and Greenpeace Fund, their sibling organizations, who were found not to be "responsible for the alleged on-the-ground harms committed by protesters".

Ah, good catch. I misread.

Unlike oil companies who would of course never do such a thing.

They sure do. They've also been sued for it, too, because it's bad. It's also bad for Greenpeace to do it.

There is absolutely no way the damage is that large and this seems to be mostly a revenge action by a community in which Greenpeace - or any other environmental organization - would never get a fair trial to begin with.

The article doesn't mention it, but it could be punitive damages

The climate can't sue if you lie about it.

Companies and people can.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com