#Lawsuits Have Become the Weapon of Choice Against #Activists

Legal intimidation suits known as “#SLAPPs” are becoming the norm for private #corporations and #governments trying to silence those who speak out on matters of public interest.

by Katie Redford
July 17, 2023

“On May 31, #Atlanta #SWAT teams with riot gear and battering rams broke down #MarlonKautz’s door. Police dragged Kautz and two colleagues to jail in their pajamas, charging them with #MoneyLaundering and charity fraud.

“Kautz, Adele MacLean, and Savannah Patterson, are volunteer board members of the #NetworkForStrongCommunities Inc., which was incorporated in 2020. Through it, they are able to raise funds for the #AtlantaSolidarityFund (#ASF). Since 2016, the fund has bailed out people arrested in #Georgia while exercising their First Amendment right to protest and helped them find legal help.

“Recently, the ASF has supported Atlanta activists who have been protesting a new $90 million police training center known as '#CopCity,' arguing that it will rob Atlanta of a #VitalGreenLung and increase inequality in surrounding neighborhoods. The state of Georgia, on the other hand, has charged dozens with 'domestic terrorism' for participating in largely peaceful protests.

“Georgia authorities claim that the money laundering charge is based on evidence of a fund transfer to another organization, but they haven’t shared any other details about their allegations. Magistrate Judge Altman, who presided over the bail hearing, described the state’s evidence as 'unimpressive,' reinforcing the defendants’ claims that the arrests are politically, not legally, motivated.

“Shortly after the arrest, Governor Brian Kemp announced that the state would go after everyone involved, and Attorney General Chris Carr tweeted that the funders of the bail and legal defense fund were next. As an executive director at a climate philanthropy who made charitable donations to the ASF for legal defense, I had to wonder: Was my door going to be battered down next?

“Some of the accused may have trespassed or destroyed property, but to charge protesters with 'domestic terrorism' and a legal defense fund with money laundering is a cynical political act that bears no relation to the misdemeanors alleged. Any American committed to democracy should be interested in making sure these charges lose in both the court of law and the court of public opinion.

“These charges seek to silence and stop opposition to an unpopular development project. They also telegraph a message to others in the state and nationwide: We will not tolerate lawful protest in Georgia. This strategy is known as strategic litigation against public participation (SLAPP), which is an intimidation lawsuit, typically used by private corporations against those who speak out on matters of public interest. Various state governments are increasingly deploying this tactic, too.

“SLAPPs don’t usually win in court, but that’s not what they’re intended to do. Instead, they set out to threaten activists and drain the financial resources of social movements. They often unfold as years-long wars of attrition, where corporations and governments with disproportionately large resources grind down the financial, emotional, and legal capacities of activists. The threat of such a suit—typically brought against individuals or groups that confront powerful people or institutions—discourages free speech and association, chilling democracy itself.

“As a lawyer on the front lines of climate justice activism, I witnessed firsthand how a SLAPP was used to weaponize the law against free speech and association. During the mass protests by Indigenous water protectors and environmentalists campaigning against the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline, SLAPPs were used widely.

“As #StandingRock became a global cause célèbre, the pipeline’s owners brought a $900 million #racketeering case against individuals and #NGOs like #BankTrack and #Greenpeace, alleging a vast global conspiracy to damage the company’s reputation and bottom line through fraud and #defamation.

“A federal court ultimately dismissed the lawsuit. But despite its eventual failure in court, the SLAPP tactic served its intended purpose: intimidation. #KrystalTwoBulls, one of the Standing Rock organizers that my organization represented, said that being sued tangled her up, practically and emotionally, in a legal battle that diverted her attention, taking her away from her work on the climate crisis and #Indigenous #LandRights.

“She began to #censor herself; she withdrew from her community and the movement, fearing that conspiracy allegations might extend to anyone she touched. And that, of course, is the point of these suits: to send out the message to either shut up or suffer the consequences.

“The case against #Kautz in #Atlanta similarly seeks to spark fear in activists and donors against supporting #FirstAmendment rights and legal defense. There is reason to believe that prosecutors may also be preparing #RICO charges against anti–Cop City activists, another dangerous use of the legal system to quell #grassroots movements.

“Since Standing Rock, over 20 states have passed '#CriticalInfrastructure' laws, which dramatically increase civil and criminal penalties related to protests at or near #FossilFuel projects. #DomesticTerrorism laws like that in Georgia have a similar intention: to weaponize the legal system against critics and stifle #DissentingVoices.

“I have no doubt that the majority of the domestic terrorism charges around Cop City will fail. But in the process, a political point will have been made, at the expense of the constitutional right to free speech. People protesting to protect the #environment and #climate will have been publicly accused of being harmful to America’s security, and they will have been forced to defend themselves—likely at exorbitant cost—against a 30-year jail sentence. Other potential activists will surely remember these charges when they consider whether it’s worth it to attend a concert, sit-in, or protest.

"The best strategy for stopping SLAPP suits in their tracks, whether they emanate from the private sector or are used by the state, is to keep speaking out, to support defamed activists, and to make the litigants pay a price. About 30 states have introduced legislation that protects against SLAPPs. And last year, #Jami Raskin introduced the #SLAPPProtectionAct of 2022 to #Congress. It must be reintroduced.

“My organization, #EquationCampaign, created a fund to provide lawyers and legal support for people who face this kind of legal retaliation for their environmental and climate work. I’m astonished at the wide range of people who need our help: from #farmers and ranchers to #journalists and #IndigenousActivists. All of them are on the receiving end of David vs. Goliath legal tactics that have long served powerful interests with near-endless resources.

“Absent federal protections, we all must be vigilant in the face of the egregious proliferation of #antiprotest laws and lawsuits.

“#Democracy and the future of this #planet require people to speak up. The law should serve—not silence—those of us who do."

https://www.thenation.com/article/activism/slapp-legal-intimidation-activists/

Just Stop Oil activist jailed for six months for taking part in slow march

Stephen Gingell, 57, thought to be first to receive prison sentence under new Public Order Act

by Damien Gayle
Fri 15 Dec 2023

"A #ClimateActivist has been jailed for six months after pleading guilty to taking part in a peaceful #SlowMarch protest on a London road.

"The sentence handed to Stephen Gingell, 57, is thought to be the first jailing under a new law that critics say makes anyone walking in a road liable for prosecution for 'interference with key national infrastructure'.

"#Section7 of the #PublicOrderAct2023 bans any act that prevents newspaper printing presses, power plants, #oil and #gas extraction or distribution sites, #harbours, #airports, #railways or #roads 'from being used or operated to any extent', with a potential penalty of 12 months in jail.

"Gingell, a father of three from #Manchester, was one of about 40 supporters of #JustStopOil who spent about 30 minutes marching on #HollowayRoad in north #London at about 4pm on 12 November, the climate campaign group said.

"He pleaded guilty to breach of section 7 at a hearing that same month at Wimbledon magistrates court. On Thursday, his case was transferred to Manchester magistrates court, where he was sentenced to six months.

"Just Stop Oil has been campaigning since 2022 for the UK government to stop all new fossil fuel production. The campaign’s 'guerrilla tactics' were cited by the Home Office when it introduced the Public Order Act’s tough new #AntiProtest measures to parliament.

"Police began using section 7 to tackle Just Stop Oil’s protests at the end of October, arresting 60 people taking part in a march in Parliament Square. In a campaign of slow march protests carried out by the group between then and 4 December, 470 of the group’s supporters were arrested 630 times, with about half of those arrests under the new law.

"A spokesperson for the campaign said: 'Section 7 of the Public Order Act 2023, a law drafted by the #FossilFuel lobby, was introduced in April by Priti Patel, and covers ‘interference with the use or operation of key national infrastructure’. It seems this government has now made walking down the road, walking on the public highway an illegal act that is worthy of imprisonment.

"'How many fathers will be imprisoned before those planning to kill us are stopped? New oil and gas will see millions upon millions lose their homes, livelihoods and lives. Protected by the government, by failed politicians, by the police, those committing genocide continue to walk free, those protesting the killings are banged up. Whose side are you on?'

"The human rights organisation Liberty criticised Gingell’s sentencing. Katy Watts, a lawyer at Liberty, said: “It is shocking to see such harsh sentences handed down to protesters. This is yet another unnecessary and draconian law introduced by a government that is hell-bent on discouraging people from standing up for what they believe in. It is a clear attempt to silence people and for the government to hide from all accountability.

"Protest is a fundamental right, not a gift from the state. Government should be protecting our right to protest, not criminalising it.'"
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/dec/15/just-stop-oil-activist-is-first-to-be-jailed-under-new-uk-protest-law?share=jetpack-whatsapp

#KnittingNannas claim partial victory in #NSW #AntiProtest law challenge

#Environmental #activists claim success after partial overturn of state laws that criminalised protest actions near major hubs

Lisa Cox
Wed 13 Dec 2023 03.23 EST

“The New South Wales supreme court has found that parts of anti-protest laws introduced by the former Perrottet government are unconstitutional because they infringe on the implied freedom of political communication.
“The laws were introduced in 2022 in response to a series of climate protests that disrupted Port Botany.

“The laws, which passed with the support of the then Labor opposition, added a new section to the state’s Crimes Act to target protest activities at major facilities such as railways, ports, transport facilities or infrastructure.

“The new offences, which carried maximum penalties of two years imprisonment and $22,000 in fines, applied in circumstances where protest activities caused damage to the facility, seriously disrupted or obstructed people attempting to use the facility, closed or partially closed the facility, or caused people trying to use the facility to be redirected.

“Two 'knitting nannas' – Helen Kvelde and Dominique Jacobs – took legal action to defend the right to protest, arguing that the new laws fundamentally undermined their right to political communication.
Their legal representative, the Environmental Defenders Office, argued that criminalising certain protest activities was unconstitutional because it impermissibly burdened the implied freedom of political communication.

“In a judgment on Wednesday afternoon, the court found the new section of the Crimes Act did 'effectively burden the implied freedom in its terms, operation, and effect … the law is, therefore, constitutionally invalid unless justified'.

“The court found the burden was unjustified where the protest activity caused people to be redirected or caused a facility to be partially closed. Those parts of the laws were therefore invalid.

“Kvelde said she was happy the court had given 'some acknowledgement to the democratic right to protest'.

“’But these laws to me feel like a distraction. As if both Labor and the Liberal party are trying to get the population angry with protesters instead of angry against politicians for failing to protect us from #ClimateEmergency,' she said.

“’I’m not sure what we can do next, but it doesn’t feel right to just let this go. We need to fight for our democratic right to protest peacefully. I wish people would understand that ultimately these laws could affect anyone – anyone the government of the day does not like.'

“A spokesperson for the Minns government said it was 'carefully considering the judgment and seeking advice on appeal options or options for legislative reform to ensure that protest activity is appropriately regulated and balances the rights and freedoms of the people of NSW'.

“The NSW #Greens spokesperson for climate change and the environment, Sue Higginson, called on Labor to consider the judgment in full. 'While the court upheld parts of the law targeting the actions of protestors it found parts to be unconstitutional. Clearly, the former Coalition government enacted harsh and draconian laws, it was an overreach,' she said.

“‘The Minns Labor government should now repeal all of the Coalition’s anti-protest laws as they have now been shown to be bad laws and, as civil society has maintained since they were first introduced, they are entirely unnecessary.'

“The knitting nannas also asked the court to find amendments to regulations that altered the definition of 'major bridge, tunnel or road' to be beyond the government’s regulation-making power and therefore invalid. But the court found those amendments were valid.”

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/dec/13/knitting-nannas-claim-partial-victory-in-nsw-anti-protest-law-challenge

Another court challenge to #AntiProtest laws -- this one in the #UK

High court challenge to ‘constitutionally unprecedented’ UK anti-protest law

#NationalCouncilForCivilLiberties brings civil case to quash ‘back-door’ regulations making it easier for police to stop protests

By Daniel Boffey, November 29, 2023

"A new law making it easier for the police to put conditions on peaceful protests is 'constitutionally unprecedented' and unlawful, according to a claim filed at the high court in #London.

"The legal challenge from the National Council for Civil Liberties, also known as #Liberty, is seeking to have the controversial regulations quashed, given what the advocacy group describes as the #draconian consequences for fundamental rights.

"The former home secretary Suella Braverman used the government’s so-called #HenryVIII powers to lower the threshold for the police to impose restrictions on protests, allowing it where there is merely a 'more than minor' hindrance on people’s daily lives.

"The change, through a statutory instrument in the Lords, came after the chamber rejected the same change, proposed months earlier in a heavily debated and scrutinised new public order act. Peers do not by convention normally vote down statutory instruments.

"The manner in which the regulations are said to have been forced through parliament is said by lawyers acting for Liberty to 'represent a constitutionally unprecedented attempt on the part of the executive to achieve by the back door through delegated legislation what it was unable to achieve by the front'.

"There had been 'no reasonable justification' provided for using a statutory instrument to change the law, it is claimed, and there was inadequate consultation of those who would be affected.

"Katy Watts, a lawyer at Liberty, said: 'We all want to live in a society where our government respect the rules, but time and again this government has done the opposite. The previous home secretary’s actions to sneak in rejected laws through the back door are a particularly egregious example of this.

“The wording of the government’s new law is so vague that anything deemed by police to cause ‘more than a minor’ disturbance could have restrictions imposed upon it. This has serious implications for everyone’s right to stand up for the things they believe in.

“These laws had been thrown out by parliament just months before the then home secretary introduced them. It’s shocking to see the government so flagrantly disregard our vital democratic checks and balances, and we’re determined not to let this stand.

“Our legal action is intended to stop this government’s flouting of the law in its tracks, and make sure that nobody – including our politicians – is above the law. It’s vital that they are not allowed to get away with it.'

"In the protest regulations brought into force on 14 June, 'more than minor' hindrances or delays are included in the definition of 'serious disruption' that is the threshold at which the police may impose conditions on a protest under the public order act 1986.

"The police are also allowed to take into account the cumulative effect of repeated protests when deciding whether the threshold had been met.

"The government has said the regulations are an attempt to deal with the activities of #JustStopOil and #ExtinctionRebellion, and that the language around 'more than minor' hindrances mirrors that in other new offences of ‘locking-on’ and ‘tunnelling’.

"The changes were nevertheless rejected by the House of Lords in February by 254 votes to 240 when they were put forward as amendments during the passage of the public order bill 2023, only for them to re-emerge in a statutory instrument.

"Regulations brought in by such means, known a Henry VIII powers in reference to the monarch’s preference for legislating directly by proclamation, are subject to minimal parliamentary scrutiny and decided on an 'all or nothing' basis without amendments.

"Between 1950 and 2017, only 0.01% of the total number of such instruments laid before parliament were rejected.

"Liberty’s legal challenge refers to supporting comments by the Lords’ secondary legislation scrutiny committee, which had been sufficiently alarmed to warn peers of 'constitutional issues' and told them it was 'not aware of any examples of this approach being taken in the past'.

"The legal challenge said it could not be right that parliament was 'treated as having provided [the] executive with a blank cheque to lower the applicable threshold by the back door and thereby sanction greater police interference with public assemblies and protests'.

"The government’s consultation is also said to have been limited to a roundtable chaired by the prime minister with the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the Metropolitan police service and the police and crime commissioners of the police forces whose areas include the M25 and national highways.

"A Home Office spokesperson said: 'The right to protest is a fundamental part of our democracy but we must also protect the law-abiding majority’s right to go about their daily lives.

"'That is why legislation is in place to clarify the definition of serious disruption and give police the confidence they need to clear roads quickly.

"'This legislation was voted on by both the House of Commons and House of Lords, following proper parliamentary procedure.'"

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/29/high-court-challenge-to-constitutionally-unprecedented-uk-anti-protest-law?share=twitter

#WaterProtectors #DirectAction #CriminalizingDissent
#DefendTheForest #EnvironmentalActivists
#ClimateActivists #ClimateJustice #ACAB #Fascism #SilencingDissent
#CorporateColonialism
#EcoActivists #Censorship #HumanRightsViolations #Article20 #AbolishTheMonarchy #RightToProtest #SlowMarch