Greenpeace is insisting that the First Amendment protects a dishonest campaign against Resolute Forest Products they call “more figurative than literal” in court filings. But when it’s time for Greenpeace to go on the attack, they strike a different chord. Here’s how the activist organization discusses free speech on their website:
Whether you call it “rhetorical hyperbole” or “unverifiable matters of subjective opinion,” it’s clear the many demonstrably false statements Greenpeace has made about Resolute don’t meet the lofty standards for honesty and transparency they claim to hold dear. In fact, they might best be characterized as “misinformation and propaganda.”
Yet Greenpeace and its allies are still trying to have it both ways. In federal court, their misleading claims are “non-verifiable statements of subjective opinion” that don’t “hew to strict literalisms of scientific precisions.” But when it’s time to solicit donations, Greenpeace claims they’re the victim of “corporate bullies” trying to “silence dissent.”[1]
It’s clear that Greenpeace believes their lofty standards apply to everyone but Greenpeace. That’s why misinformation and dishonesty are the cornerstone of Greenpeace’s boreal campaign, and why they refuse to accept responsibility for the harm their campaign has caused boreal communities.
[1] http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/stories/the-day-i-was-treated-like-a-mobster-and-served-a-300-million-lawsuit-for-defending-forests/