First Amendment Freedoms in Danger: Greenpeace Ordered to Pay $667M to Oil Company

Julia Kelley

A North Dakota jury has ordered environmental group Greenpeace to pay Dakota Access Pipeline’s operating oil company in a case sparking controversy around Americans’ right to freedom of speech and protest. 

Protest Against Dakota Access Pipeline. John Duffy. CC BY 2.0

On March 19, 2024, a North Dakota jury found Greenpeace, a global environmental nonprofit network, guilty of defamation and destructive protest action against the Dakota Access Pipeline, ordering the nonprofit to pay its operating oil company $667 million. This decision comes after years of national pushback against the Dakota Access Pipeline due to the project’s potential environmental hazards; the 1,172-mile-long underground pipeline transfers crude oil from North Dakota to an oil terminal in Patoka, Illinois. Moreover, the pipeline stretches within a half-mile of the current Standing Rock Sioux Reservation boundaries, posing potential risks to significant cultural and burial sites. As such, since its approval in 2016, protests led by Native tribes and environmental groups such as Greenpeace began sprouting up around the pipeline’s construction sites and sacred Native American areas. In many instances, demonstrations resulted in violence between protesters and law enforcement. It is because of these protests that the builders of the pipeline, oil company Energy Transfer, praised the jury’s March 19 decision, echoed in its counsel’s statement: “Peaceful protest is an inherent American right; however, violent and destructive protest is unlawful and unacceptable.” 

In response to this decision, however, environmental activists and Tribal nations have taken a much different position. Contrary to Energy Transfer’s sentiment, many have determined this verdict to be an attack on First Amendment rights rather than a protection against unnecessary violence and destruction. Those associated with Greenpeace have even named the case a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, or a suit that intentionally targets those speaking out against public interest issues in an attempt to intimidate critics and force them to spend money. To those opposing the pipeline, not only has this lawsuit silenced years-long appeals for environmental safety and Native land protection, but has also cost Greenpeace an immense amount of money to defend its position, thus delaying progress in such areas. Despite being a major nonprofit, Greenpeace has previously warned that losing this case could potentially lead to bankruptcy. Those involved now fear that this could be a reality, as financial reports demonstrate that its total assets from 2023 may not be enough to ensure a supersedeas bond, in which a surety insurer would put up the bond necessary to pay the court-ordered amount. If not, then Energy Transfer would be able to begin seizing Greenpeace’s assets, including all cash needed to keep it operating.  

Moreover, Greenpeace has come to represent freedom of speech and protest in general. In an interview with Democracy Now, Steven Donziger described the trial as a way to “silence people’s legitimate constitutionally protected right to speak out,” founded on a false narrative that protesters were violent while it was actually “law enforcement agencies […] hired by Energy Transfer that were really committing violence.” Critics warn that this will have effects that go beyond support for environmental and Native protections, potentially posing detrimental risks to nonprofit work as a whole. With a rise in anti-protest bills since 2017 mirroring a rise in major protest movements, much of this newly proposed legislation calls for increased liability against organizations not directly involved with protests but who offer support, including nonprofits or religious groups. In addition, the potential bankruptcy of Greenpeace, a substantial and largely influential organization, signals even fewer protections for smaller nonprofits, who may not have the same amount of financial support or as wide of a network. This could significantly decrease charities’ ability to speak out on various issues, for fear that they could easily be sued by larger corporations. Such concern would halt imperative support for causes across the country, a major blow to many movements. . 

In the wake of the lawsuit, supporters of Greenpeace, environmental protection and the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe have critiqued and denounced the jury’s final decision. Despite the shock that the trial has caused, such advocates find hope in Greenpeace’s intention to appeal the case, as the organization declared in a statement released a day after the verdict. In addition to this, Greenpeace also highlighted the increased support it has gained over the past year, as opposed to a dissolution of its movement risked by the court case. The statement’s overall message affirms Greenpeace’s continued efforts as well, signaling that their work is still not over: “we will not be silenced, and our movement will endure.” 

GET INVOLVED:

For those looking to get involved with environmental protection in the United States, researching local or state legislation is a great place to start. Looking into advocacy on a federal scale can be powerful as well, especially through staying updated on EPA regulations and making comments. In addition, check out organizations like the Environmental Defense Fund, The Nature Conservancy, We Act For Environmental Justice or the National Environmental Education Foundation, all of which are focused on making environmental change and expanding awareness through public policy support and education. Those interested in supporting Native American rights can look into the Native American Rights Fund, the Association on American Indian Affairs, the American Indian Policy Institute or Cultural Survival. 

---

Julia Kelley

Julia is a recent graduate from UC San Diego majoring in Sociocultural Anthropology with a minor in Art History. She is passionate about cultural studies and social justice, and one day hopes to obtain a postgraduate degree expanding on these subjects. In her free time, she enjoys reading, traveling, and spending time with her friends and family.

The Price of Preservation: Famous Sites Limit Tourism

By: Zoe Lodge

As overtourism threatens popular sites, the only solution seems to be restricting access, a controversial move. 

Tourists crowd Yellowstone National Park. Neal Herbert. PDM 1.0.

From Yosemite to Machu Picchu, many of the world’s most incredible natural wonders and historical landmarks are facing the complex challenge of overtourism. While these destinations attract millions of eager visitors who enable economic circulation, the surge in foot and vehicle traffic has led to environmental, cultural and infrastructural concerns. To combat these issues, many national parks and heritage sites have implemented reservation systems and strict visitor limits, measures that while frustrating to some, are essential for long-term preservation.

National parks and global historical landmarks are not merely attractions; they are delicate sites that require careful management. Overtourism can lead to severe consequences such as soil erosion, damage to plant life, disruption of local wildlife and even structural harm to historical sites. In places like Yellowstone National Park, off-trail hiking, wildlife harassment and increased vehicle traffic have led to environmental destruction and tourist injury. Similarly, Machu Picchu has suffered from footpath erosion, instances of vandalism and structural strain due to the high number of daily visitors. Without intervention, these sites risk being permanently damaged or potentially lost to future generations.

Recognizing these risks, many national parks and historical sites have begun introducing reservation systems and ticketing policies to manage visitor numbers. These restrictions help reduce congestion, minimize environmental damage and ensure more responsible tourism. While ticketing specific attractions is not a new concept, regulations limiting the number of people allowed in a park or site at a given time are becoming increasingly common. Yosemite National Park, for example, has experimented with reservation-only entry during peak seasons to control the flow of tourists. Zion National Park has implemented a permit system for some of their most popular hiking routes to prevent environmental damage and danger caused by overcrowding. Similarly, Peru has imposed strict daily limits on visitors to Machu Picchu and even restricted access to certain trails to prevent excessive wear.

Some travelers have voiced frustration with these limitations, arguing that they complicate trip planning and reduce the chance for spontaneity. However, these restrictions exist precisely because the unrestricted flow of visitors has contributed to significant degradation of these sites. Unlimited access to national parks and heritage sites might seem appealing, but unregulated tourism is not worth the cost, causing irreparable damage to the landscapes, historical structures and environments that make these destinations so remarkable.

Beyond preservation, limits ultimately enhance visitors’ experience. With fewer crowds, tourists can enjoy these sites in a more serene environment, appreciating natural and cultural significance without the chaos of overcrowding. Less congestion also means improved safety and reduced strain on park staff and infrastructure, an already complicated issue in the United States. 

While restrictions on tourism might be inconvenient for some, they are a necessary measure to protect the world’s most cherished natural and cultural landmarks. Managing visitor numbers is not about keeping people out but about protecting the environmental integrity of these sites. Ultimately, it is for the good of the sites, the world and visitors, as they will then have to deal with less traffic, fewer crowds and be able to enjoy these locations more in tune with the way that nature intended.

---

Zoe Lodge

Zoe is a student at the University of California, Berkeley, where she is studying English and Politics, Philosophy, & Law. She combines her passion for writing with her love for travel, interest in combatting climate change, and concern for social justice issues.

The History of Favelas, Brazil’s Impoverished Towns

Since their emergence in the 19th century, favelas have faced continuous struggles with poverty and crime, a symbol of the tension between Brazil’s government and its underrepresented communities.    

Favela of Telegrafo. patano. CC BY-SA 3.0. 

Scattered throughout Brazil are built-up communities known as favelas. These towns, principally found on the outskirts of large cities like Rio de Janeiro or Sao Paulo, are settlements marked by their unique urban development. While they are often associated with drugs, crime and poverty, these neighborhoods are a symbol of Brazil’s complex history. 

Finding their origins in the late 19th century, favelas emerged amid a period of tumultuous political and social change in Brazil. They initially formed after the country abolished slavery in 1888. With a large number of impoverished former slaves left homeless and unemployed, they started forming temporary shelters. These were mainly squatter settlements near their work, which was often found in cities. Over the years, these communities grew in number and size. However, it was only after the Canudos War in 1898 when they became the large settlements we know today. The War on Canudos, a deadly civil war that saw a massacre in the small town of Canudos, left almost 20,000 ex-soldiers homeless after their return from the conflict. With nowhere to live, the group established the first favelas in the federal state of Bahia. 

As Brazil’s class divide grew, more favelas popped up from the 1940s to the 1970s, becoming more organized with newly created residents’ associations serving as communicators between the towns and the government. Collaboration between the two led to agreements about water and electricity accessibility and construction investment, playing a large role in the favelas’ maintenance. However, rising politicians during this era also targeted the favelas for political gain, stereotyping their existence as slums breeding disease, illiteracy, crime and moral corruption. Many favelas were “removed” as a result, but other methods were sought out to build up and sustain the communities’ infrastructure. Despite various programs intending to improve buildings, Brazil’s economic crisis led to failed attempts at providing adequate housing in many areas. At the same time, cocaine markets were growing globally, and Brazil became a prominent drug producer and transit point between European and U.S. markets. These criminal groups formed during the 1980s and solidified in the early 2000s, attracting more police attention to the neighborhoods. 

In 2022, about 8.1% of Brazil’s population lived in favelas. Because of their densely built-up infrastructure and continuous struggles with crime and drugs, favelas have also become synonymous with slum life. Widespread poverty, in particular, has grown to be favela residents’ largest struggle, with economic hardship producing limits on food, healthcare and education. The government has proposed various methods to help tackle these ongoing issues and support the overall conditions of these communities. Authorities have introduced programs to help residents: setting up training programs, providing low-interest loans or materials to construct accommodations and building facilities such as health clinics or schools. Despite these attempts, favela residents still lack full sociopolitical representation and face police violence. Thus, activism in favela communities remains imperative, as residents continue to search for peace and draw attention to the need for social development and increased rights. 

GET INVOLVED:

Residents living in favelas struggle against police brutality, discrimination and stark poverty daily. Those looking to help address these issues can do so in several ways, including through making donations. Outreach organizations include: The Favela Foundation, focusing on the development of sustainable social and educational programs; Catalytic Communities, an NGO based in Rio de Janeiro bringing sustainable programs and legislative support to favelas; and The Gerando Falcões Fund of BrazilFoundation, bringing education and economic development to the favelas. Supporting favela locals in their fight to speak out against systemic violence is also very important. Using social media to follow, share and repost activism can help circulate news and reframe the stereotypes usually associated with favela communities. 

---

Julia Kelley

Julia is a recent graduate from UC San Diego majoring in Sociocultural Anthropology with a minor in Art History. She is passionate about cultural studies and social justice, and one day hopes to obtain a postgraduate degree expanding on these subjects. In her free time, she enjoys reading, traveling, and spending time with her friends and family.