Trump's Favorite Law Firm Loses Massive RICO SLAPP Suit Against Greenpeace, But Has Another One Already Going

from the the-infamous-rico-slapp dept

We talk quite a bit about the problem of so-called SLAPP lawsuits around here. SLAPP standing for “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.” It’s a terrible acronym, but what it really means is generally the rich and powerful filing bogus lawsuits against the less powerful for the purpose of harassing and silencing them. That is, even if the plaintiffs recognize that they will lose, it’s worth it to them to file the lawsuit anyway, because the process itself can be so destructive to the defendants. This is why anti-SLAPP laws are so powerful, allowing defendants to both get rid of such lawsuits quickly and to get back legal fees, thus minimizing at least some of the damage of SLAPP suits. Now, there are some lawyers who seem to be specializing in filing SLAPP-style lawsuits. One law firm that appears to be building up such a reputation happens to be President Donald Trump’s personal law firm, Kasowitz Benson Torres. We’ve discussed how its founding and managing partner, Marc Kasowitz, had threatened to sue the NY Times over its reporting on women claiming Trump had touched them inappropriately — a threat he failed to follow through on within the statute of limitations in New York.

However, others at Kasowitz’s firm appear to be targeting the environmental movement with SLAPP suits, starting with Greenpeace. And, they’ve added a funky little twist to the traditional SLAPP suit — the RICO SLAPP. Back in May of 2016, a company named Resolute Forest Products, represented by Kasowitz partner Michael Bowe, filed a massive (124 page) lawsuit against Greenpeace and a few others, claiming that Greenpeace is a fraud. Literally. Here’s how the lawsuit opens:

?Greenpeace? is a global fraud. For years, this international network of environmental groups collectively calling themselves ?Greenpeace? has fraudulently induced people throughout the United States and the world to donate millions of dollars based on materially false and misleading claims about its purported environmental purpose and its ?campaigns? against targeted companies. Maximizing donations, not saving the environment, is Greenpeace?s true objective. Consequently, its campaigns are consistently based on sensational misinformation untethered to facts or science, but crafted instead to induce strong emotions and, thereby, donations. Moreover, virtually all of Greenpeace?s fraudulently induced donations are used to perpetuate the corrupted entity itself and the salaries of its leaders and employees.

It turns out that Resolute Forest Products (a Canadian logging company) is kind of upset that Greenpeace has been campaigning against the company, arguing that it’s a “Forest Destroyer.” The two organizations go back a ways — and Greenpeace in the past did retract and apologize an erroneous statement about Resolute a few years back. But the lawsuit goes on at great length to claim that Greenpeace’s actions are a form of racketeering that has cost Resolute $100 million in reputational value — opening up Greenpeace to the potential of a $300 million penalty.

And, yes, here’s where I’ll point you to Ken “Popehat” White’s IT’S NOT RICO, DAMMIT post, where he explains how almost no case is really a RICO (racketeering) case. And it applies to this one as well. While the case was originally filed in Georgia (which has a decent anti-SLAPP law, but one facing some challenges recently), it was later transferred to California, which has a very strong and well-established anti-SLAPP law. And, thus, last week the case was thrown out on anti-SLAPP grounds.

Whether or not you like Greenpeace or its methods is besides the point here. The issue is whether or not a company that is being targeted for protests can file a massive RICO lawsuit against an organization for its protests. And here, the judge said that’s not how it works. The judge notes that the basic claims — on which most of the rest of the claims rely — of defamation don’t pass the sniff test, as there’s no actual malice shown (which is required for defamation of a public figure, which the court says Resolute is). It also points out that nowhere did Resolute show that any of the named defendants made “knowingly false statements.” That… makes a defamation claim difficult.

The court also isn’t impressed with Resolute trying to turn clear statements of opinion into pretend “facts.”

In its quest to describe Greenpeace?s statements as matters of fact instead of opinion, Resolute often takes an overly literal approach to obviously overemphatic speech. For instance, Resolute refers to a Greenpeace campaign that describes Resolute as a Canadian Boreal ?Forest Destroyer.? … Resolute?s claim depends on construing the word ?destroy? to mean ?annihilate? or ?eliminate completely.? In this vein, Resolute?s expert witness Peter Reich states, ?Resolute has not destroyed, and is not destroying, the boreal forest. Because almost all harvested stands grow back to boreal forest, Defendants? claims about Resolute?s forest “destruction? cannot be true.?…

As any reader of Greenpeace’s statements will know, these are not the only permissible constructions. The word ?destroy? is a perennial instrument of hyperbole. See, e.g., Edward Barsamian, ?Gigi Hadid Takes on the New Look of Destroyed Denim,? Vogue (Feb. 3, 2015) (on-line ed.) ( The Vogue writer here does not intend to convey that Ms. Barsamian’s jeans have been completely annihilated, but merely that they are ?worn with deliberate tears at the knee? or ?riddled with curious new holes.? Similarly, when the entertainment writer Shaunee Flowers states that ?Kanye West destroys Wiz Khalifa on Twitter and it’s epic,? she is not suggesting that Mr. West has actually eliminated Mr. Khalifa, but only that he has made disparaging comments about him on social media….

Yes. A judge in a RICO lawsuit about environmental protests is discussing Kanye West twitter battles. We live in such amazing times.

Resolute’s attempts to include expert commentary on why Greenpeace is wrong, just leads the court to note that these are the kinds of things that people can disagree on, which makes it even more ripe for First Amendment protections:

The submission by Resolute of two expert declarations makes more manifest, not less, the degree to which the challenged statements are protected by the First Amendment. These declarations illustrate the extent to which the challenged statements (a) concern matters of public importance and (b) are subject to professional debate. For example, declarant Frederick Cubbage undertakes a review of the FSC?s suspensions of RFP?s certifications and concludes: ?Resolute?s 2013 FSC audits indicate possible bias. Audits of similar forests in similar situations should have similar outcomes. That did not appear to be the case for Resolute. An applicant in full compliance with relevant laws should be certified under any standard.? … Greenpeace?s expert, Keith Moore, disagrees with this analysis, noting that because ?[t]he FSC certification system establishes a higher standard and a broader suite of requirements,? it is possible to comply with the relevant law and still be denied FSC certification. … Accordingly, he concludes, ?[i]t is also incorrect to state that a company that meets regulatory requirements is equivalent to a company meeting all FSC certification requirements.? .. After all, as Dr. Cubbage notes, ?forest certification, generally, refers to a non-state market-based policy approach to achieving sustainable forest practices and development,? … so by definition it will encompass more than ?relevant laws.? The academy, and not the courthouse, is the appropriate place to resolve scientific disagreements of this kind. As the Seventh Circuit has said, ?scientific controversies must be settled by the methods of science rather than by the methods of litigation.? Underwager v. Salter, 22 F.3d 730, 736 (7th Cir. 1994). For that reason, ?[c]ourts have a justifiable reticence about venturing into the thicket of scientific debate, especially in the defamation context.?

The court is also not at all impressed by the RICO claims. Remember the Popehat admonition about just how difficult it is to ever properly prove RICO in court? Resolute fails. Miserably.

Resolute fails to meet these heightened pleading requirements. While Resolute?s complaint lists reports authored by Greenpeace, and includes dates of publication in many cases, in many cases it does not identify the author of the reports, and it never identifies the ?misconduct? or ?specific content? that constitutes fraud in the reports.13 Much of Resolute?s pleading is even less specific. For example, Resolute claims that the Defendant ?processed millions of dollars in fraudulently induced donations,? without describing a single donor, donation date or amount, nor how the donation was fraudulently induced… As such, the defendants are not on ?notice of the particular misconduct which is alleged to constitute the fraud.? … These general allegations fall far short of Rule 9(b)?s requirements, and Resolute?s RICO claims are therefore dismissed.

There’s also the claim of extortion as a part of the RICO claim. Again… nope:

Resolute fails to allege predicate acts of extortion under the Hobbs Act. There is no Hobbs Act claim because the Defendants have not obtained ?property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.? 18 U.S.C. § 1951(b)(2). To show extortion, Resolute must allege that that Greenpeace demanded property from Resolute itself. Sekhar v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2720, 2725 (2013); Scheidler v. Nat?l Org. for Women, Inc., 537 U.S. 393, 404 (2003). In Scheidler, the Court held that the National Organization for Women (?NOW?) had not alleged extortion against activists who sought to shut down abortion clinics because although those activists sought to harm the clinics and NOW, they did not seek to obtain any property from such harm. 537 U.S. at 405 (?Petitioners may have deprived or sought to deprive respondents of their alleged property right of exclusive control of their business assets, but they did not acquire any such property. Petitioners neither pursued nor received something of value from respondents that they could exercise, transfer, or sell.?). Likewise here, even if Greenpeace sought to harm Resolute through Resolute?s customers, it did not seek to obtain the business assets it sought to deprive Resolute of. Any alleged property transfer induced by fraud, coercion, or threats, moved between Greenpeace and its donors, or between Resolute and its customers. There was no alleged property transfer between Greenpeace and Resolute.

From there, the court moves on to the anti-SLAPP motion to strike. The analysis is short and straightforward. Greenpeace was clearly engaged in protected speech on a matter of public interest, and Resolute failed to show a probability of success as a matter of law. Thus, Greenpeace wins the anti-SLAPP motion as well (on state law claims). And, thus, Resolute will now have to pay Greenpeace’s legal fees. Of course, the court did allow Resolute the ability to file an amended complaint, and if that fails (as seems likely) Resolute may still appeal. However, I’d be quite surprised if the 9th Circuit ruled differently. This appears to be a fairly straightforward SLAPP case, just with a RICO twist.

Of course, just a couple months earlier, while this case was still pending, a company called Energy Transfer Partners — which might be more well known as an organization behind the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline — filed a strikingly similar lawsuit against Greenpeace (and others, including Earth First). This one begins:

This case involves a network of putative not-for-profits and rogue eco-terrorist groups who employ patterns of criminal activity and campaigns of misinformation to target legitimate companies and industries with fabricated environmental claims and other purported misconduct, inflicting billions of dollars in damage. The network?s pattern of criminal and other misconduct includes (i) defrauding charitable donors and cheating federal and state tax authorities with claims that they are legitimate tax-free charitable organizations; (ii) cyberattacks; (ii) intentional and malicious interference with their targeted victim?s business relationships; and (iv) physical violence, threats of violence and the purposeful destruction of private and federal property. Energy Transfer is the latest legitimate business targeted by this network.

Incredibly, even though Greenpeace is the first named defendant, the lawsuit mostly focuses on other groups, like Earth First using what the filing calls “the Greenpeace Model” and only mentions in passing that Greenpeace was supportive of the Dakota Pipeline protests and organized some donation drives.

As you read through the lawsuit, it really reads like those who wrote it believe that getting attention for your protests is somehow illegal.

One of the ways the corrupt organizations conceal their true operations is to create the illusion that their ?campaigns? and high-profile ?events? are grassroots actions by volunteers and local ?victims? who are spontaneously rallying together for the promoted cause. In fact, these events are organized, funded, and produced by these corrupt ENGOs to create sensational media attention and drive traffic and donors to their websites. Wolfpacks of corrupt ENGOs regularly collaborate on these manufactured attacks, including ?old-line? ENGOs like Greenpeace and radical and fringe eco-terrorists who engage in disguised direct actions involving violence, property, and business destruction, and fabricated claims and ?evidence? of misconduct by those targeted by the campaigns. These radical fringe groups create public spectacles and generate fodder for putatively legitimate environmental organizations to trumpet via-press releases and use as the basis to disseminate a parade of falsehoods deployed as part of a plea to the general public to ?get involved? by donating or taking their own, more benign, direct action such as placing calls, or writing letters. Thus, at the heart of this fraudulent scheme are fundamental lies as to what these ENGOs do, their substantial funding, well-organized structures, powerful influences, and purposefully coordinated activities designed to create the appearance of an independent ?grassroots? uprising by the people. These lies are perpetuated on donors, tax authorities, targets and their critical market constituencies, and the public at large.

Again, even if you disagree with Greenpeace’s (and others’) positions and/or tactics, it’s pretty crazy to argue that they’re illegal in any way, let alone a form of racketeering. Much of the rest of the filing reads like an advertisement for the Dakota Access Pipeline and how wonderful and safe and amazing it will be. It seems almost written more for public consumption than to make any kind of legal argument. There’s also a section on cyberattacks, in which Energy Transfer Partners argues that silly Anonymous videos, which include doxing (and, yes, the lawsuit complains of “doxing”) are all a part of the grand RICO conspiracy. You’d think that someone would inform these lawyers that anyone can just declare themselves a part of Anonymous and do what they want. It’s like the opposite of an actual conspiracy. And while it does appear these may have lead to DDoS attacks on Energy Transfer, we’ve discussed before how DDoS can be seen as a form of protest — i.e., a form of protected expression. And, here, there’s no way to tie such actions back to organizations like Greenpeace anyway.

In this case, Energy Transfer is arguing that its damages are $300 million — meaning a potential $900 million award should it prevail — a sum that likely would put Greenpeace completely out of business. Importantly, the lawsuit was filed in North Dakota, which has no anti-SLAPP law and no caselaw around anti-SLAPP issues. So, this should be yet another reminder for why all states need stronger anti-SLAPP laws and we need a federal anti-SLAPP law, as soon as possible.

Oh, and in case you’re wondering, yes, the lawyers on this filing are also from Trump’s favorite law firm. It’s the same Michael Bowe from Kasowitz.

Filed Under: , , , , , , , ,
Companies: energy transfer partners, greenpeace, resolute forest products

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Trump's Favorite Law Firm Loses Massive RICO SLAPP Suit Against Greenpeace, But Has Another One Already Going”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Baron von Robber says:

Re: Re: Why the Anti-Trump whining

Whine to thee but to me!

He loves the poorly educated for a reason.

Tom Z. says:

Re: Re: Re: Why the Anti-Trump whining

Confused by your examples. Those were articles about things Obama did. So Obama was mentioned in the title.

In this case the title is about Trump, but the article is about somebody who hired somebody who works in the same office as somebody who was hired by Trump.

See the difference?

Thad (user link) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Why the Anti-Trump whining

Yeah. Probably because it’s obvious partisan bullshit that only undermines credibility. It makes you look like professional trolls.

Says the guy who only ever shows up here to parrot whatever Fox News’s latest talking point is.

Are you really that hard up for ad impressions?

Wha…what? What are you talking about? Who are you talking about? You…you get that I don’t work for Techdirt, right? Or sell ads to them?

Stories about "Obama’s hairdresser" are different than stories about Obama.

And if there were a story about Obama’s hairdresser, I would fucking-well expect the headline to mention that he’s Obama’s hairdresser. Because if the headline said "Joe McGillicutty", I wouldn’t know who the fuck that was. But I know who Obama is, and what a hairdresser is.

The point of a headline is to provide context. Throwing out names that the audience may not recognize does not provide context. Using names the audience does recognize, as a frame of reference, does provide context.

This isn’t fucking rocket science. Your apparent difficulty in figuring out how headlines work doesn’t make you look like a professional troll — but it does make you look like you’re stupid, dishonest, or both.

Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Why the Anti-Trump whining

See, some people are just confused by labels. They think they know what the labels mean, but they are actually confused. They see or hear lib or con and they make assumptions. They hear Dem or Rep and they make assumptions. They hear Trump or Obama and they make assumptions.

The fact is that all those terms, lib, con, Dem, Rep, Trump, Obama (along with many others) are just labels. Some of those labels have a meaning that changes over time, but no one clarifies as to which era they are referring to. Others of those labels mean something more specific, but which ALSO change over time, and no one specifies as to which version of those labels they mean.

So take the label stater’s with a HUGE grain of salt and understand that they mean some undefined range of things and that the actuality is that they actually have no idea what the hell they are talking about. Maybe on purpose or maybe out of ignorance (purposeful or not).

Someone says ‘label’ whatever that label is, just ignore them. They know not of what they speak.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Why the Anti-Trump whining

As soon as you mention anything that Trump may have mentoned something about, you get labeled, depending on what side of the issue your opinion can be construed as.

There is a religious adoration of Trump among some and there is a religious hate of Trump among others. Much of it comes from perspectives and the definition of what a president should and shouldn’t.

In the end, you will get another shouting match, where all of the participants gets more entrenched in their opinions. Improvement is in moving peoples opinions, rather than showing your own. But it is a difficult task in a country like USA where you have 2 sides and the freaks on every issue and as soon as someone mentions arguments from one of the sides, the freaks get ignored since they are irrelevant to how you feel about an issue…

Thad (user link) says:

Re: Why the Anti-Trump whining

I’ll bite.

How else should Kasowitz Benson Torres be introduced in an article about Kasowitz Benson Torres? Is there something else that the firm in question is better known for than for representing the President of the United States?

Let’s try a thought experiment. You’re writing an article about Kasowitz Benson Torres. Before you get into the meat of the specific case you are discussing, you need a headline that describes the law firm, for the benefit of readers who don’t know it by name. How is it notable? What is it best known for that can be described in a short phrase?

Write that headline for me. Tell me the best way to describe the law firm that represents the President of the United States without mentioning the President of the United States.

Will B. says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Why the Anti-Trump whining

Well, “…but another already in the pipes” or the equivalent. I don’t believe the headline should be that; just saying that it would be a possible headline thay doesn’t mention Trump.
In point of fact, I believe Trump is perfectly relevant to the article, I just felt the headline question was poorly posed and counterproductive to the actual point.

Thad (user link) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Why the Anti-Trump whining

Well, "…but another already in the pipes" or the equivalent.

That would sacrifice the key information that the new suit is being brought by the same firm as the previous one.

I just felt the headline question was poorly posed and counterproductive to the actual point.

Given that you’re the only person who’s even tried to answer it, and your answers amount to "that’s easy, just remove all reference to the law firm that the article is about," I gotta say I’m pretty satisfied with it.

William Braunfeld (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Why the Anti-Trump whining

Look, I was trying to be brief in my response. First of all, I’m not the only one who has replied to you; an AC further down in the reply chain gave you the perfect answer already. “Kasowitz Benson Torres Loses Massive RICO SLAPP Suit Against Greenpeace, But Has Another One Already Going”.
Once again, Thad, I am not disagreeing with you that the reference to Trump is pretty well justified here. I’m just saying that the question you posed seems pretty easy to answer and doesn’t really make the point I think you’re trying to make.


Re: Re: Why the Anti-Trump whining


The story itself sounds like something interesting, something worth even trudging through pointless mindless partisan nonsense to see.

If you really can’t see the problem here, then you’re part of the reason the moron got elected.

Anonymous Coward says:


Article starts out mentioning that the law firm is Trump’s personal law firm, specifically mentions the threatened lawsuit with some details and then moves on to the actual lawsuit in question, which is being handled by other people at the same firm. The body of the post discusses the lawsuit and associated details and commentary and then… back to bashing Trump in the final sentence.

It’s a pattern here – just ignore the bias and focus on the substance – they usually do a good job on articles apart from their occasional add-ins about their overwhelming hatred for Trump.

Will B. says:


I mean, I wohld say it’s pretty fucking relevant that this firm represents the PotUS. I like how you say it’s “different people at the same firm” as if that excuses the firm… like saying it’s “different people at the restaurant” serving the meat raw, so clearly we can’t lump the whole restaurant together.


Re: Re: TDS

No, not really. Law firms generally represent more than one client. Even single name PI firms represent more than just one person. The fact that they may have single famous client really is completely irrelevant to what they do.

It’s kind of like calling Hillary “that girl that once defended a pedophile”.

OGquaker says:


Any person that has kept their neurons in strings, who doesn’t hate Mr. Trump? 1991

I have yet to meet that person, and sometimes a thousand people a month meet in this Meetinghouse. Yes, my Los Angeles HS graduating class loves trump, & ‘they’ had our 50th reunion in Napa, I had to miss it:( 2010

OGquaker says:

Re: Re: TDS

Mr. Trump tried to rip off Ambassador Hotel from the LA Unified School District, the key to my airplane fit the chain on the kitchen where RFK was murdered.

Mr. Trump tried to rip off 9 miles of virgin coastline:
” Cojo and Jalama Ranches sold…In addition to the U.S. Air Force, two political organizations have control over development: the California Coastal Commission and the Santa Barbara Board of Supervisors…. Donald Trump was a possible buyer who wanted to put up hotels, golf courses, etc., but backed out before escrow. “

A wise consumer looks for a law firm with matching moral backbone. Ignor-ance is a verb; something you do.

David says:

What I find funny:

Moreover, virtually all of Greenpeace’s fraudulently induced donations are used to perpetuate the corrupted entity itself and the salaries of its leaders and employees.

Uh, modulo all the spice-up words, this is how Greenpeace or actually most tax-deductible charities operate. They aren’t an environmental investment corporation (that would certainly not make them eligible as a charity and would require a whole lot more money to be even marginally effective), they organize protests and track down state- and corporation level actors damaging the environment and publicize their findings ("ecological terrorism" as it is called by unconscionable lowlifes). They need equipment, personnel and operations for that.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Older Stuff
10:43 California Governor Signs Bill Forbidding The Use Of Rap Lyrics As Criminal Evidence (12)
10:45 The Onion Files Hilarious Amicus Brief In An Important Case, And Actually Makes A Key Point In The Best Way Possible (23)
09:31 There Are Real Threats To Free Speech Everywhere. Cancel Culture Is Far Down The List (338)
10:44 Germany's Government Continues To Lock People Up For Being Extremely Online (18)
09:35 Saudi Prosecutors Are Targeting A US Citizen For Tweets Criticizing The Government (18)
13:36 Finally, Some Good News: Federal Anti-SLAPP Law Introduced (9)
16:43 5th Circuit Rewrites A Century Of 1st Amendment Law To Argue Internet Companies Have No Right To Moderate (625)
12:03 Court To Public University: Yeah, It's A 1st Amendment Problem When You Delete Comments You Don't Like (16)
10:46 Judge Blocks 'No Recording Cops Within 8 Feet' Law Even Arizona Cops Don't Want To Defend (6)
09:31 Virginia Court Rejects Prior Restraint, Says Old Law Used In Attempt To Ban Books Is Unconstitutional (18)
12:20 Censorship Starts At Home: Turkish Gov't Controls The Press, Repeatedly Claims It Does Not Control The Press (6)
05:35 Wannabe Censor Ron DeSantis Is Now 0 For 2 With His Censorship Bills: Court Throws Out His 'Stop WOKE Act' As Unconstitutional (34)
09:38 Elon Musk's Legal Filings Against Twitter Show How Little He Actually Cares About Free Speech (35)
12:07 Virginia Politicians Are Suing Books They Don't Like (65)
09:21 Appeals Court Corrects Its Previous Error, Holds That Recording Cops Is A Clearly Established Right (8)
15:27 Federal Court Allows Protesters' First Amendment Suit Against Violent Boston Cops To Continue (26)
19:39 Student Expelled Over Off-Campus Nazi Joke Can Continue To Sue The School, Says Appeals Court (205)
10:42 Twitter Sues Indian Government Over Orders To Block Content (3)
10:47 Policymakers Need To Realize How Any Internet Regulation Will Impact Speech (135)
10:44 More Than Two Thirds Of States Are Pushing Highly Controversial (And Likely Unconstitutional) Bills To Moderate Speech Online (50)
13:38 Australia's Upside Down Internet Liability Policy Shows How Section 230 Enables More Free Speech (87)
09:28 The Moral Panic Is Spreading: Think Tank Proposes Banning Teens From Social Media; Texas Rep Promises To Intro Bill (88)
12:15 Federal Agent Stupidly Threatens Twitter User With Arrest Over Protected First Amendment Expression (57)
09:31 How The Dobbs Decision Will Lead To Attacks On Free Speech; Or, Why Democrats Need To Stop Undermining Free Speech (52)
10:46 Devin Nunes Loses Yet Another SLAPP Suit, This Time In California (21)
09:28 Philippines Orders Critical News Organization, Rappler, Shut Down; Just As Rappler's Founder Argues Against Free Speech (11)
09:19 Clarence Thomas REALLY Wants To Make It Easier For The Powerful To Sue People For Criticizing Them (32)
15:39 Twitter Successfully Quashes Sketchy Copyright Subpoena Over Billionaire's Critic On Twitter (237)
12:14 Giant Private Prison Company Goes To Court To Try To Get Lawyer To Stop Tweeting About Them (15)
10:48 UK Approves Extradition Of Julian Assange, Allowing The US Government To Continue Criminalizing Journalism (46)
More arrow