Logging Company Resolute’s Lawsuits to Silence Greenpeace

Resolute Forest Products has initiated multi-million dollar lawsuits and is seeking to have their environmental critics found to be a criminal enterprise. Find out what’s at stake for the environment and free speech...

The Cases

Following a series of revelations on its unsustainable forestry activities, Canada’s largest logging company Resolute Forests Products (TSX: RFP) took legal actions in Canada and the United States against several individuals and environmental groups.

On May 23, 2013 Resolute filed a $7 million (CAD) lawsuit for defamation and economic interference in the Ontario Superior Court against Greenpeace Canada and two of its staff members. This was the first legal effort by Resolute to try to silence the longstanding Greenpeace campaign to protect the Canadian Boreal forest, which includes calling out companies to stop their unsustainable logging practices.

In striking out parts of Resolute's defamation pleadings, a panel of appellate judges with the Ontario Superior Court ruled that Resolute had attempted to "greatly expand the scope of the litigation and transform the trial into an inquiry into Greenpeace.

On May 31, 2016 Resolute filed a $300 million dollar (CAD) lawsuit under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) in the United States District Court for Southern Georgia, against Greenpeace International and U.S. Greenpeace entities, as well as Stand.earth (formerly ForestEthics), and five individual staff members of these organizations. RICO was originally conceived of to prosecute the mafia, and, in allowing plaintiffs to recover treble damages, provides a uniquely powerful means to intimidate advocacy groups into silence.

The claims by Resolute in this second lawsuit include defamation and alleged violations of U.S. anti-racketeering laws, calling Greenpeace a “global fraud” and claiming “soliciting money, not saving the environment, is Greenpeace’s primary objective.”

Greenpeace considers these lawsuits to be meritless and obvious SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) tactics intended to silence Greenpeace and other critics of Resolute’s logging practices in the Canadian forest.

Over 100 independent non-profit and media organizations have spoken out against Resolute’s RICO lawsuit and the threat it poses to free speech. Greenpeace, Stand.earth and other advocacy groups have the right to free speech and serve a vital role in speaking out on matters that are of public interest and concern. That is the bottom line in both of these cases.

For decades, Greenpeace Canada has worked in close collaboration with First Nations, governments, corporations and unions in Canada to deliver a sustainable forest products industry, healthy local communities, and science based conservation.

We will not be silenced.

For more informations about the lawsuits :

• Legal documents
• Further Information
• Recent coverage
• FAQ

Related blogs

• What do other corporations say about Greenpeace? (2017)
• A world without Greenpeace? How One Corporation is Attacking Your Right to Speak for Forests (2017)
• Greenpeace Responds to Resolute's CEO Richard Garneau (2017)
• Resolute Forest Products Can Save Forests and Jobs and Respect Indigenous Rights (2016)
• Who's to blame? Time to pull out the mirror Resolute (2015)
• FSC International calls out Resolute Forest Products' leadership, asks for an immediate change in approach (2015)
• For workers and for our public forests, Resolute must work to regain its FSC certificates (2014)
• CBC's The Current: Resolute, Greenpeace and SLAPP suits (2014)
• Resolute Forest Products will not tolerate dissent, job posting, lawsuit suggests (2014)
• It's not our fault says Resolute (2013)

Further information on SLAPPs

Fortunately, the fight-back against SLAPPs has begun. A diverse coalition of groups and individuals opposed to SLAPPs – from the Media Alliance to the Taxpayers Protection Alliance, to TripAdvisor and Yelp – have joined forces to press for a federal US anti-SLAPP law. This Public Participation Project is a great place to start for more information on the SLAPP phenomenon in the US.

In Canada, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and Pro Bono Law Ontario formed their own Public Participation Project to provide resources and support to assist defendants in SLAPP suits and encourage anti-SLAPP legislation. Their website provides information on SLAPPs in Canada, including examples of Canadian SLAPPs and helpful material for those being SLAPPed.

For further information on SLAPPs and the campaigns to fight them:

• For background on both Resolute lawsuits and the Greenpeace campaign that provoked them, see the NRDC’s overview here.
• Kate Redford of EarthRights International discusses SLAPP lawsuits, including Resolute’s RICO case against Greenpeace and Stand.earth, as part of a broader corporate movement to silence environmentalists in this Huffington Post blog.
• The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP) give more information on the need for a federal anti-SLAPP statute on their website
• For background on the Canadian defamation case and more details about its SLAPP nature see this article by the Watershed Sentinel.
• For more information on the US RICO case see this article by Celia Wexler, the award-winning journalist and nonfiction author.

The following experts can be contacted for more information on the free speech implications of SLAPP lawsuits such as Resolute’s:

• Peter Jacobsen: Leading practitioner in defamation law and Chair of the Canadian Issues Committee, Canadian Journalists for Free Expression.
• Cara Faith Zwibel: Director of the Fundamental Freedoms program at the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. (Currently on maternity leave, please also contact Rob DeLuca)
• Professor David Ardia: Professor of Law at UNC School of Law and Board Member of the Online Media Association.
• Evan Mascagni: Policy Director of the Public Participation Project.
• Bruce Brown: Executive Director at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP)
• Rod Smolla: Award-winning author and First Amendment scholar, currently Dean and Professor of Law of Widener University Delaware Law School

A World Without Greenpeace? How One Corporation Is Attacking Your Right to Speak for Forests

Your right to speak out is being threatened right now in a dizzying variety of ways, not only by oppressive governments around the world, but also by underhanded corporations who want to suppress speech through expensive lawsuits.

Right now, Greenpeace is facing a massive lawsuit that Resolute Forest Products has filed to prevent us from speaking out.

This strikes at the very core of our identity. Greenpeace was created to champion the very idea of speaking out for the planet and the people that depended on it. At our founding in 1971 when a group of the first Greenpeacers sailed out to Amchitka to stop nuclear testing, they weren’t able to stop it with their action, but the story they told sparked a global movement against nuclear testing.

Speech is power. It is the greatest force for change in the world, the tool each one of us has to build the future that we deserve.

Today, in the United States, we are governed by a president who plans to decimate the EPA, censor scientists, roll back protections for clean water, air and the climate, and erode necessary human rights for people of different races and religions. And yet the voice of the people has never been stronger.

Journalists around the world are documenting the ethical failures of the administration. The social pressure of millions caused Uber to withdraw their support for the administration, and the voices of the millions who have protested at the women’s marches or at airports against the Muslim ban grow louder every day. Social media is a megaphone for the people, and stories from regular people ricochet around the globe overnight because of the inherent power of the words they use, not the money that they put behind it. People are speaking out, writing, sharing, organizing and protesting and they are not going to stop.

But right now Greenpeace’s ability to speak out is being threatened by multiple lawsuits filed by Resolute Forest Products – a $7 million dollar lawsuit filed in Canada against Greenpeace Canada and a $300 million dollar (CAD) lawsuit filed in the US (against GPUS and GPI).

Who is Resolute and why are they trying to silence us?

Resolute is a company that logs in the Boreal forest in Canada, and the forests they cut down become a variety of products from tissue and wood pulp to the very paper our books, newspapers and magazines are printed on. Resolute is suing Greenpeace because of a series of investigations through which we have exposed unsustainable practices; the Boreal forest needs healthy, intact habitats so that wildlife like woodland caribou can thrive. The forest is also the home to Indigenous peoples that depend on its resources, and in fact, have the right to decide how the land should be used.

Instead of facing up to the criticism from Greenpeace, Stand.earth and others, Resolute is telling us — and you — to stop talking about it.

Lawsuits like the ones they have filed are called Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, or SLAPP suits, and they are a dangerous tool in the corporate toolbox to stop people from speaking out.

In fact, they are usually effective. They are designed to intimidate, and to ensure that corporations who can spend a lot of money in court can make speaking out too difficult for individuals, scientists and non-profits.

And another troubling aspect about the US lawsuit is that the $300 million claim is being made under RICO laws — designed to go after organized crime like the mafia. Their central argument is that an organization like Greenpeace that criticizes the practices of non-sustainable business is a criminal enterprise.

That concept is so ridiculous that we don’t expect Resolute to win on the merits, but it doesn’t make it any less of a threat. The worst part about SLAPP suits is that they can be meritless and still have an outsized time and financial impact, as well an intimidating impact on organizations and individuals.

Greenpeace has been handling bullies for a long time, so we’re not about to stop talking about the Boreal forest and why it needs to be protected. And we won’t stop telling Resolute why they have to change their practices to keep up with scientific opinion.

But this is bigger than just us.

Imagine a world without Greenpeace, where lawsuits like this win, or where organizations stop speaking out because it’s too risky and too expensive.

Now imagine a world where we don’t have the ACLU standing up for immigrants, Amnesty International standing up for global human rights, or Color of Change standing up to corporations working against racial justice. Imagine the Human Rights Campaign can’t afford to fight to preserve marriage equality. Imagine there is no more advocacy at all, that the groups that stand up for veterans, children, the disabled, the sick, the poor have been put out of business by the increasing cost of speaking out. Even more vulnerable are grassroots activists working in their communities without the support of an organization — frequent targets of these lawsuits.

Now imagine the newspapers get shut down because they can’t keep up with defamation suits from people like Trump, and the legal costs and consequences have gotten so high that we can’t afford to speak our minds anymore.

It may sound dramatic, but if a precedent is set that RICO laws can be used in this way, the door will be open for more scenarios like this. It happens quietly at first, and then when we see how powerful the corporations have become, it’s too late.

Already, we’ve seen two copycat lawsuits where others are starting to use these RICO charges in the same way: one filed against several environmental groups including Greenpeace in Texas by a climate denier, and another in New York against media companies, targeting advocacy about climate change and news stories about the election.

We have to put our foot down before it gets worse. Resolute is trying to cover up what they’re doing to the Boreal forest. But I know you won’t let it. Please spread this story. Speak out alongside us. Let Resolute know we won’t be silenced.

By Molly Dorozenski

Molly Dorozenski is the Communications Director at Greenpeace US, where she has worked for eight years in creative and strategic communications. She has planned and executed comprehensive communications campaigns including campaigns on climate, the Arctic, the Gulf Oil Spill, as well as a variety of corporate campaigns that helped move companies towards more sustainable practices. In 2015 she received an Effie Award for work with the VIA Agency that pushed tech companies to commit to using more renewable energy.

Resolute Forest Products would be Greenpeace’s Judge, Jury and Executioner

Over the past two weeks, Resolute Forest Products has been on a mission: to seed the false claim as far and wide as possible that Greenpeace admitted to lying. And while it makes for great headlines, it just isn’t true.

What Greenpeace has done is criticised Resolute Forest Products unsustainable forestry practices – claims we have consistently stood by as accurate and based on scientific fact. This is the core argument Greenpeace Canada, and Greenpeace U.S. and Greenpeace International made in separate court filings related to the two lawsuits Resolute filed against us.

We are confident that the courts will confirm our right to advocate - as the Ontario courts did recently: a panel of judges concluded that Resolute had provided “not a single example” to support their allegation that “Greenpeace has a strategy of distorting the truth and ‘sensationalizing’ the evidence.” They referred to the accusation as ‘scandalous and vexatious’.”

But Resolute is not waiting to let judges decide the matter in a court of law. Instead, they are misusing the court proceedings as fuel in an all-out PR war against their critics.

For their most recent attack, Resolute CEO and President Richard Garneau lifted a single U.S. legal argument and falsely claimed that this constituted an admission of lying. In fact Greenpeace U.S. organizations and Greenpeace International’s legal documents say the opposite: that “all of the challenged statements are true,” they are “protected opinion… and substantially true” and are “carefully documented with references to scientific studies.”

Taking legal phrases relevant to U.S. free speech law out of context simply distorts their true meaning. “Hyperbole” and “rhetoric” are routine legal arguments made in many U.S. First Amendment cases. They are not, in any way, admissions of lying.

Protecting the ecologically important and unique boreal forest has been a crucial part of Greenpeace’s work. In this role, we hold accountable industries and governments that are harming the environment, pressuring them to change their ways. We want Resolute to adopt solutions that strengthen communities, secure jobs, respect First Nations rights and protect environmental values. Instead Resolute is wasting time and money attacking their critics - in the courts and in the press.

Wouldn’t all this effort be better placed in finding real, long-term solutions?

Resolute has sued Greenpeace Canada, Greenpeace U.S., Greenpeace International and several Greenpeace staff as well as its own independent auditor Rainforest Alliance when it didn’t award the company’s practices a passing grade. They have also publicly lashed out against the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, Natural Resources Defense Council, World Wildlife Fund for Nature, and the Forest Stewardship Council. It would appear that they see no place in civil society for criticism of their practices.

Greenpeace will continue to defend against Resolute’s meritless claims because too much is at stake - not only the future of Canada’s forests, but the future of free speech in this country.

Joanna Kerr, Executive Director for Greenpeace Canada

How litigation throttles civic advocacy

Silencing criticism takes many forms. It can be a government cutting off domestic internet access or stopping a satirical news show. It can be as blatant as imprisoning a journalist, or as subtle as being forced out of a career. It can play out in orders from a podium, or in the dust of a firing range.

Or, as is more and more often the case, it can play out in court.

It’s no easy thing to shut down critics in a democracy. If someone doesn’t like what you have to say about them, they’ll find it difficult to get away with hiring goons to break down your doors to intimidate you. No, an increasingly used way to shut someone up – an advocacy group, or a lone dissenter – is to take them to court and sue them into a state of paralysis.

In many ways, hiring goons is a lot easier and lot less complicated, because bringing to bear the massive financial and legal resources necessary to silence a critic is costly, complex and time-consuming. And this is exactly the idea behind SLAPP suits (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation); they tie up the defendant as much as the plaintiff so that the defendant is no longer able to perform their civic duty as a watchdog.

With the ever-growing power of industry over advocacy groups, SLAPP suits effectively tip the balance firmly in favour of those companies who are willing to smother human rights and harm the environment to make a profit.

Silencing criticism has far-reaching impacts beyond the courtroom where a case is being heard. SLAPPs are becoming a popular scheme for anyone, anywhere who wants to throttle free speech. Anyone, that is, who has the time, money and resources.

Right now, Resolute Forests Products is pursuing just this kind of suit. For speaking out against its destruction of our pristine forests, the giant logging company (using Donald Trump’s legal team) is attempting to sue Greenpeace into silence using an anti-mafia law called “RICO” (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organisations). Under RICO, Resolute is attempting to label every day advocacy, like protest and raising awareness to environmental threats, as “criminal”. Resolute’s claims ride on ridiculous and baseless accusations, but that’s not the point, because it is not a case that Resolute is necessarily trying to win.

Victory in a SLAPP comes far before the final verdict – success is in the execution of the SLAPP itself. Has your critic been rendered immobile within the expensive, resource-draining rigmarole of the legal proceedings? Yes? Then you’ve done your job.

But, this is not just about Greenpeace, because no SLAPP suit happens in isolation. This is about any protestor, advocacy group or public watchdog anywhere. This is about the tribal elders of Standing Rock, a few courageous people in Alabama or a journalist reporting on Donald Trump and their right to free speech for the public good.

This kind of throttling of free speech is not only contained within national borders. This is about using US courts to hamstring the rights of international civic institutions.

This is also about one corporation taking its cues from the tricks used by others in court. Bullying tactics – like exhausting activists’ resources, targeting individual campaigners (as well as the organisation itself) and using the cloak of legal privilege to hammer a defendant with a barrage of contrived defamatory allegations – get used or refined for attacking free speech in another courtroom. A tactic is developed in one place and the blow lands somewhere else entirely.

Allowing SLAPPs to evolve creates a growing and malignant cancer which eats away at public interest advocacy and keeps civil society organizations and journalists from doing their job. Imagine a world where corporations and industries everywhere were able to operate unchecked – clear-cutting our forests while at the same time bulldozing free speech.

Silencing criticism can take many forms, and SLAPPs are something we can resist together by declaring it to the world when it happens. When we expose this kind of litigation we are taking a stand for all our rights everywhere. Together we must send a strong, unequivocal message that drowning your critics in bogus legal proceedings is not just cowardice, it does not work.

We will not be silenced.

Joanna Kerr, Executive Director for Greenpeace Canada

Hachette Livre Calls Resolute's Legal Tactics 'Excessive' - Greenpeace Response

Yesterday, one of the world's largest publishers, Hachette Livre condemned the excessive legal practices of Resolute Forest Products and called on the logging company to do better for the forest in the strongest possible terms.

Arnaud Nourry, the CEO of Hachette Livre, released a fiery letter to the CEO of Resolute Forest Products, Richard Garneau, in response to a Greenpeace campaign to protect free speech and forests. Resolute has sued Greenpeace International, Greenpeace USA, and Greenpeace Canada in two multi-million dollar lawsuits, in an attempt to silence and destroy the more than 45 year old organization.

Greenpeace has called on the largest global publishers, who source paper from Resolute, to join us as allies and live up to their sustainability promises by demanding the logging company both protect the boreal forest and drop these lawsuits. Hachette Livre was the first publisher to show its leadership on this issue.

The letter referenced the importance of operating in line with the Forest Stewardship Council's sustainability standards, and called Resolute's legal tactics "excessive."

Nourry writes, "At a time when the United States has decided to turn its back on climate change by reneging on its commitment to the Paris Accord, we believe we need more than ever independent NGOs such as Greenpeace. Without them, who will speak up for the environment in the future?"

"We applaud Hachette Livre for taking the first step to stand up for the forest and freedom of speech and for Arnaud Nourry's leadership in understanding the high stakes of the threat to Greenpeace and civil society more broadly," said Clement Senechal forest campaigner for Greenpeace France.

He continues, "we also call on Hachette Livre to continue to hold Resolute responsible for acting in accordance with the values mentioned in this letter: protection of the environment, the importance of free speech and the value of working with independent NGOs and evaluators. We also call on Hachette Livre to see that while retaining FSC certifications is a must, other controversial logging practices including destroying intact forests and harming threatened species habitat must also be resolved."

Amy Moas, Ph.D. from Greenpeace USA, added that, "publishers have the unique ability to make a difference on this massive legal attack on environmental advocacy work as major buyers of Resolute's paper and stakeholders in the global conversation about free speech. Like many publishers, Hachette Livre has a strong sustainability policy that Resolute does not meet, and we look forward to seeing how Resolute resolves this issue."

Other major publishers, including Penguin Random House, HarperCollins, MacMillan, and Simon & Schuster need to move more quickly on this issue to regain the confidence of the half a million people around the world who have asked publishers to live up the their promises and ensure forests and free speech are not attacked on their watch.

[1] Click here to read Hachette Livre CEO letter to Resolute Forest Products CEO, or copy the following URL to your browser: http://www.hachette.com/en/the-environment

[2] Click here to learn more about Resolute's massive legal attack against Greenpeace, or copy the following URL to your browser: http://www.greenpeace.org/resolutelawsuits/

[3] Click here to learn more about Resolute's controversial logging practices and how publishers are involved by accessing Greenpeace's recent "Clearcutting Free Speech" report, or copy the following URL to your browser: https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/clearcutting-free-speech

More Than 100 Authors Sign Greenpeace's Pledge for Free Speech and Forest Protection

More than 100 authors from around the world, including Nobel Prize winner John Maxwell Coetzee (Disgrace); writer and comedian Stephen Fry (More Fool Me); Man Booker Prize winners Margaret Atwood (The Handmaid's Tale) and Yann Martel (Life of Pi); and thought leaders Michelle Alexander (The New Jim Crow), Rebecca Solnit (Men Explain Things to Me) and Naomi Klein (The Shock Doctrine) signed a pledge [1] with Greenpeace to support free speech and stand up for forests.

This pledge follows two multi-million dollar lawsuits filed by Resolute Forest Products, a Canadian company, to silence Greenpeace's criticism of its controversial logging in the boreal forest. The lawsuits could set a dangerous precedent for free speech if they succeed in silencing public comment on corporate behavior.

"The endings of The Handmaid's Tale, 1984 and Brave New World are written. Ours is not. This is a chance to stand up for freedom of speech, the freedom to advocate for change, and the freedom to question authority, and to strengthen their protection under law. As a society, we need a positive outcome to this story," said Margaret Atwood, author of The Handmaid's Tale, which recently became Hulu's record breaking television series and depicts a dystopian future where all but the most powerful women are forbidden to write and are denied access to books.

Authors signing the pledge committed to defend "freedom of speech as a pillar of democratic and peaceful societies, the right of individuals to organize and protest without intimidation, [and] those who peacefully protect the world's forests."

"Speaking as a serial blasphemer, I take freedom of speech very seriously," said author and actor Stephen Fry, "It's not just about the satisfaction you get from speaking your mind, it's also about telling uncomfortable truths that need to be heard, and Greenpeace has been incredibly successful at exposing what the powers that be want to keep secret. But this case goes beyond Greenpeace to threaten every whistle-blower and watchdog with information that the rich and powerful want suppressed. I'm worried, and I think you should be too."

On May 16th, Greenpeace published a report [2] that showed major international publishers are purchasing paper from Resolute. [3] Greenpeace is inviting these global publishers to join this call to protect freedom of speech and work with Resolute to become more sustainable.

Other notable authors who signed the pledge include Man Booker Prize winners Julian Barnes (The Sense of an Ending) and Ian McEwan (Atonement), Pulitzer Prize winner Anthony Doerr (All The Light We Cannot See) MacArthur Award winner Deborah Eisenberg (Twilight of the Superheroes), Lev Grossman (The Magicians), Lauren Groff (Fates and Furies), William Shatner (Up Till Now), Alec Baldwin (Nevertheless), Jane Fonda (My Life So Far) and many more.

"Publishers and authors are natural allies in our fight to protect free speech. Our campaign celebrates the power of words and the incredible work that authors and publishers do every day to ensure critical thinking and the spread of ideas in our society. Now, we're asking publishers to disavow this heavy-handed attempt by a paper company to silence dissent," said Greenpeace USA Senior Forest Campaigner Amy Moas.

Greenpeace will be at Book Expo this week in New York, connecting with publishers and readers, and displaying an art installation called Treewhispers by artist Pamela Paulsrud, an ongoing international collaboration awakening our heartfelt connection to trees.

Notes to editors:

[1] Click here to see the full text of the authors' pledge and the list of signatories, or copy the following URL to your browser: https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/authors-pledge/

[2] Click here to access the full "Clearcutting Free Speech: How Resolute Forest Products is going to extremes to silence critics of its controversial logging practices" report, or copy the following URL to your browser: https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/clearcutting-free-speech

[3] In its report, Greenpeace is asking Resolute Forest Products to:

• Adopt Free, Prior and Informed Consent as the basis for engaging with Indigenous Peoples to ensure forest planning is driven by Indigenous knowledge and governance.
• Suspend logging in and sourcing from High Conservation Value Forests including Intact Forest Landscapes and Woodland Caribou habitat until science-based conservation planning takes place.
• Publicly support large-scale, protected areas based on this science and Indigenous knowledge.
• Recommit to the FSC system and regain lost certificates.
• Work with environmental organizations, unions and communities to address legitimate economic concerns and ensure jobs are sustained.

[4] Click here to learn more about Resolute's massive legal attack against Greenpeace, or copy the following URL to your browser: http://www.greenpeace.org/resolutelawsuits/