The Fossil Fuel Resistance.pptpodcast.bze.org.au/storage/friday/discGroup/... · Greenpeace on...

1

The Fossil Fuel Resistance:Intellectual Property, Climate

Activism, and Culture-JammingDr Matthew Rimmer

ARC, ANU and ACIPA

7 October 2013

Presenter

Dr Matthew Rimmer

ARC Future Fellow, Associate Director, ACIPA

Associate Professor, ANU College of Law

Canberra ACT 0200

Telephone Number: 61254164

E-mail: [email protected]

2

Introduction

The Fossil Fuel Resistance

After decades of scant organized response toclimate change, a powerful movement is quicklyemerging around the country and around theworld, building on the work of scattered front-line organizers who've been fighting the fossil-fuel industry for decades. It has no greatcharismatic leader and no central organization; itbattles on a thousand fronts. But taken together,it's now big enough to matter, and it's growingfast.

3


No movement this diverse is going to agree on amanifesto, but any reckoning begins with theidea that fossil fuel is dirty at every stage, and weneed to put it behind us as fast as we can. Forthose of us in affluent countries, small shifts inlifestyle won't be enough; we'll also need to alterthe policies that keep this industry fat andhappy. For the poor world, the much hardergoal is to leapfrog the fossil-fuel age and gostraight to renewables – a task that those of us


…. who prospered by filling the atmospherewith carbon must help with, for reasons bothmoral and practical. And for all of us, it meansstanding with communities from the coal fieldsof Appalachia to the oil-soaked Niger Delta asthey fight for their homes. They've foughtlongest and hardest and too often bythemselves. Now that global warming is startingto pour seawater into subways, the front linesare expanding and the reinforcements are finallybeginning to arrive.

Adbusters

Structure

1. Greenpeace’s Creative Confrontations

2. The Yes Men are Revolting: Identity Correction, Climate Activism, and Culture-Jamming

3. The Youth for Climate Truth

4. Bidder 70

5. Coal in Court: Whitehaven, Climate Change, and Civil Disobedience

4

1. Greenpeace’s Creative Confrontations

Greenpeace on SOPA/ PIPA

Under proposed US censorship laws, ourwebsites could be shut down because wespoofed VW's logo

In the history book of bad ideas, the concept ofgiving corporations the right to censor theinternet has to rank among the worst ever.

But that's what the impact of two bills recentlyintroduced in the US Congress would be if they,or anything like them, were enacted into law,and it's causing a righteous ruckus among free


… speech activists around the world.

In solidarity with major sites like Wikipedia,Boing Boing, and Reddit, many Greenpeacewebsites will be dark for 12 hours on 18 Januaryto protest these two bills specifically, and theidea of empowering internet censorship ingeneral.


At Greenpeace, we’ve managed to put somejudo moves on some mighty corporations byleveraging their own advertising budgets againstthem. Whether it’s spoofing VW’s mostexpensive superbowl ad of all time, spreadingthe word about a spoof of the AmericanPetroleum Institute’s support for the KeystoneXL tarsands pipeline, creating a Kit Kat ad thatillustrates the rainforest destruction inherent inpalm oil production, or putting up a look-a-like


…. Apple.com website to push for better e-waste policies, we’ve rigorously exercised ourright to free speech. In freely speaking outagainst corporate abuse of the environment,we've won many a campaign victory.


We use corporations' own language, their ownmarketing, their own strength against them -which is sometimes the only way that an entirelysupporter-funded operation like ours can affordto put a spotlight on the negative side of theiroperations.

Thing is, while court case after court case hasagreed with us that parody is a protected formof free speech, the corporations at the pointyend of our parodies tend to disagree.

5


Exxon/Esso took us to court in France overalleged copyright infringement of their logowhen we launched a campaign against them:

Esso said we were in violation of theirintellectual property rights. We said it was freespeech. The court agreed with us, and in anhistoric decision, we won. But had that decisionbeen left to Exxon/Esso, we would have beenshut down.


Nestlé's Kit Kat brand famously failed when itattempted to have our spoof video featuring itsbrand - and critical of their support forrainforest destruction - removed from YouTubefor trademark violation. Hundreds of oursupporters reposted the video on other sites andtheir own Facebook profiles.


Eventually, YouTube’s lawyers intervened andthe video was restored. Under Sopa, YouTubeitself could have been shut down for hosting ourKit Kat video. Facebook could have gone darkfor hosting supporter samizdat. Greenpeace.orgwould have gone dark worldwide. And Kit Katowner Nestlé would never have been compelledby our supporters and their customers to reviseits policy on palm oil procurement, a movewhich has struck a major blow to an industry…


…. which is mowing down orang-utan habitat inIndonesia to plant palm trees.

Which is why you need to oppose Sopa andPipa. While the Obama administration hasindicated they would veto any bill with some ofthe more draconian measures that have beenconsidered, and Sopa itself has been "shelvedindefinitely", we need to send a message, loudand clear, about how far we'll go to stopcorporate censorship.

Greenpeace vs Mattel

6

Greenpeace

Barbie has a nasty deforestation habit - she istrashing rainforests in Indonesia, including areasthat are home to some of the last tiger, orang-utans and elephants, just so she can wrap herselfin pretty packaging.

The habitat of the endangered Sumatran tiger isunder threat from deforestation for pulp andpaper.

Greenpeace

Mattel, the manufacturer of Barbie, is feedingthis nasty habit by using paper packaging for theworld's most famous toy from Indonesia's mostnotorious rainforest destroyer Asia Pulp andPaper (APP).

Critical wildlife habitat and carbon-richrainforests and peatlands are being wrecked forcheap, throw-away toy packaging.

Creating the future of play, shouldn't meanno future for rainforests.

Greenpeace

We all know that break ups are hard. Especiallywhen they involve secrets – like the shamefulsecret that broke up Barbie and Ken back inJune: she had destroyed rainforest in her toypackaging. Her manufacturer Mattel was usingproducts from Asia Pulp and Paper (APP), apulp and paper company notorious fordestroying Indonesian rainforests, including thehabitat of the endangered Sumatran tiger. Kenwas understandably distraught.

Greenpeace

It wasn’t pretty. But all the drama that followed:Ken’s shocking interview, a public Twitter feudbetween the former couple, inappropriatephotos of Barbie with a chainsaw, over 500,000emails sent by you to Mattel – all of it has asilver lining. It helped bring the continuingdestruction of Indonesia’s rainforests for pulpand paper out into the open and forced action.

Greenpeace

Mattel recognized it couldn’t allow its supplychains to include products coming fromdeforestation and that toy packaging shouldn’tcome at the costs of rainforests and tiger habitat.That was made very clear by the strong responsefrom people all over the world to the revelationthat Barbie was wrapped up in rainforestdestruction. Today Mattel has brought closure tothe couple’s drama by dropping deforestation.

7

Greenpeace vs Volkswagen Greenpeace vs Volkswagen

Greenpeace vs Volkswagen Greenpeace

The force is with you and together you madeVolkswagen (VW) do a handbrake turn onimproving the efficiency of its cars. Somethingthey said they could not do until you cried BS tomake VW turn away from the Dark Side!

VW said they couldn't reduce their car CO2emissions (brace yourself for the boring butimportant bit):

"…The 95 g/km Long-Term-Target for 2020 isthe result of a political decision taken last year. It

Greenpeace

… is not based on sound impact assessment noron a realistic appreciation of the costs andtechnical progress necessary to meet the goalwithin the timescale…" -- Volkswagen 2010 But526,000 Greenpeace supporters across theplanet have forced VW to change its policy andits cars.

Greenpeace

For the past two years VW refused to back a keyEuropean law which would make cars moreefficient and help reduce our dependence on oil.VW were a major obstacle against strong targets.As the biggest and most powerful car companyin Europe they used their might to lobbypoliticians and block progress.

8

Greenpeace

But after more than half a million people stoodagainst them, a parody of their Star Wars advertwent viral across the internet, thousands ofactivists dressed as storm troopers protested attheir dealerships and on the streets, and directactions at car shows across Europe, VW havecaved in to pressure from across the globe andannounced they will meet and support climatetargets.

Greenpeace

This victory couldn't have happened withoutyou. Back in June 2011 when we started thiscampaign, VW preferred to remove our videosfrom Youtube rather than talk about theefficiency of its cars or how it was lobbyingagainst strong EU climate laws.

VW has now publicly agreed to live up to itspromises to be the world's greenest carcompany, setting an example for the rest of theindustry.

Greenpeace

This is what we can achieve when we acttogether!

This win is crucial. Pollution from cars is amajor cause of climate change, disruptingweather patterns and endangering the Arctic.The effects will be truly global, with countrieslike China – where the market for new cars isstill on the rise – looking to Europe forinnovations. This is truly the beginning of theend of the combustion engine as we know it.

Greenpeace

Inefficient cars have driven the world's thirst foroil, which is increasingly coming fromunconventional sources. Slashing car emissionswon't just cut pollution - it will reduce thedemand for oil worldwide. That means there willbe less incentive to drill in fragile environmentslike the Arctic.

2. The Yes Men are Revolting:Identity Correction, Climate

Activism, and Culture-Jamming

The Yes Men

9

The Yes Men’s Strategies

Identity Correction

Hoaxes

Infiltration

Media-Jacking

Culture-Jamming

The Yes Men versus The United States Chamber of

Commercehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fl

sNwClU1dI

Structure

A. Copyright Law and Fair Use

B. Trademark Law and Parody

C. Freedom of Speech

D. Withdrawal of the Action

E. Culture-Jamming by The Yes Lab

A. Copyright Law and Fair Use

US Chamber Take Down Notice

Against this background, the Chamber ofCommerce recently learned of the existence ofits copyrighted-protected material on thewebsite located at www.chamber-of-commerce.us, a site for which HurricaneElectric Internet Services is the Internet ServiceProvider. The Website infringes the Chamber ofCommerce’s copyright’s by directly copying theimages, logos, design and layout of the Chamberof Commerce’s copyright-protected official…

10

US Chamber Take Down Notice

… website, located at www.uschamber.com.The unauthorized exploitation of the Chamberof Commerce’s copyrighted material constitutesa violation of United States copyright law,including, without limitation, the DigitalMillennium Copyright Act. Continuing to be theISP for this material could subject HurricaneElectric to legal liability.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation

The Parodic Site is obviously designed forpurposes of criticism and comment andprotected by the fair use doctrine. Any use myclient may have made of material copyrighted bythe Chamber of Commerce is highlytransformative. Further, to the extent that itutilizes copyrightable materials of the Chamber,the Parodic Site uses no more than necessary forpurposes of the parody.


As the Supreme Court has recognized, parodiesmust often use substantial portions of anoriginal work to make their point. Finally, criticaltransformative uses rarely if ever supplantmarkets for the original material. In this case,the Parodic Site is plainly not a substitute for theoriginal, nor does it invade any licensing marketfor any of the Chamber’s copyrighted works.


More broadly, the Parodic Site serves the publicinterest by advancing political criticism anddebate about the Chamber’s position on globalwarming legislation, obviously of public concernas the Chamber purports to ‘represent 3 millionbusiness [sic] of all sizes, sectors, and regions.We are frankly disappointed that the Chamberof Commerce has chosen to take this approach,particularly in light of the Chamber’s well-documented history of support for free speech.

B. Trade Mark Law and Parody

11

Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America v. Jacques Servin and others

(2009)

US Chamber’s Complaint

1. Trademark Infringement

2. Unfair Competition

3. Trademark Dilution

4. False Advertising

5. Cybersquatting

6. Unlawful Trade Practices

7. Publication of an Injurious Falsehood

8. Prima Facie Tort

US Chamber’s Law Suit

The Plaintiff, The Chamber of Commerce of theUnited States of America, brings this action toseek redress for Defendants’ fraudulent acts andmisappropriation of its valuable intellectualproperty. Defendants had a common plan toengage in acts that violated multiple laws. Theseacts deceived the press and public, and causedinjury to the Chamber, while promoting thecommercial ventures of certain of theDefendants who trade under the name …


…“The Yes Men.” The acts are nothing lessthan commercial identity theft masquerading associal activism. These infringing and fraudulentacts are antithetical to public debate onimportant issues, because they prevent thepublic and the press from knowing the trueposition of the intellectual property ownerwhose trademarks and copyrights were usedwithout permission, and they disguise the truemotives of the persons who took that property.


In short, such conduct is destructive of publicdiscourse, and cannot be tolerated under thelaw.

Corynne McSherry

12

Corynne McSherry of the Electronic Frontier Foundation

The action was a brilliant piece of politicaltheater, but it had a serious purpose: callingattention to the Chamber's political activities.This is core political speech, protected by theFirst Amendment. We're very pleased that DavisWright Tremaine - with its long, successfulhistory of protecting free speech rights ofAmericans - has joined us in helping theseactivists battle a transparent attempt atcensorship.


The First Amendment Protects Parody from Trademark and other actions.

Dismissal of Trademark Dilution claim

Dismissal of False Advertising claim

Dismissal of Cyberpiracy Claim

Dismissal of Unlawful Trade Practices claim

Dismissal of Injurious Falsehood Claim

Dismiss of Prima Facie Tort Claim

Defendants Entitled to Their Attorneys' Fees

C. Freedom of Speech


The Chamber took a controversial position on avital political matter, climate change. Defendantsengaged in a parody to criticize that position.The Chamber suffered no actual damage, butapparently suffered such an extreme case ofembarrassment that it filed this lawsuit. TheChamber’s embarrassment may beunderstandable; the suit is not


The Chamber’s opportunistic behavior is merelyan attempt to silence its critics. Ironically, theChamber has long contended that courts shouldbroadly protect First Amendment expressionand refrain from narrowly defining speech ascommercial... Indeed, the Chamber singled outas meriting protection speech by gas companieson climate change. Here the Chamber’s keeninterest in a broad construction of the FirstAmendment mysteriously has vanished.

Public Citizen

Judged by this standard, the Yes Men’s pressconference was not commercial in any relevantsense. It did not propose any commercialtransaction, but was instead an audaciouspolitical stunt designed to embarrass theChamber by highlighting its controversial stanceon global climate change. The Yes Men madeuse of the Chamber’s marks only to further thatpurely political aim, not to promote any goodsor services in competition with the Chamber.

13

Public Citizen

In the 2011 case of Koch Industries Inc. v. John Does1-25, Kimball J of the United States DistrictCourt for the District of the Central Division ofUtah dismissed an action by the Koch IndustriesInc. against a number of environmental activists– members of Youth for Climate Truth – whichhad alleged trademark infringement, unfaircompetition, cybersquatting, computer fraudand abuse.

350.Org on theUS Chamber of Secrets

D. Withdrawal of ActionThe Yes Men Win Battle with the US Chamber of Commerce

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=RcEHF4cPe

_w

Andy Bichlbaum of the Yes Men

"Just as their case against us was finally heatingup again, the U.S. Chamber decided to drop it.The U.S. Chamber knew this was our chance tochallenge their silly claims and, since theyclaimed we had 'damaged' them, investigate thedetails of their finances through the discoveryprocess. It's the height of rudeness to deprive usof this great opportunity."

Mike Bonanno of the Yes Men

"The U.S. Chamber's lawsuit represented theonly time in 17 years that anyone has beenstupid enough to sue us. This was the chance ofa lifetime, and we profoundly deplore the U.S.Chamber's about-face."

14

E. Culture-Jamming byThe Yes Lab

Canada at the Copenhagen Climate Talks

Chevron ‘We Agree’Yes Men spoofing Chevron ‘We

Agree’ Campaign

Yes Men spoofing Chevron ‘We Agree’ Campaign

Yes Men spoofing Chevron ‘We Agree’ Campaign

15

General Electric Peabody Clean Coal

Shell in the Arctic Shell in the Arctic

Shell in the Arctic

The Yes Lab Imposters and TransCanada Keystone XL

Pipeline

16

Pipeline Company's PR Dream Turns Into a Nightmare

TransCanada's "community consultation" squaddogged by activist lookalikes

In towns across Canada, troupes of mischievousactivists are successfully derailing the attemptsof TransCanada—the company building thestalled Keystone XL pipeline—to ram throughtheir latest proposed project, the Energy Eastpipeline, which would bring over a millionbarrels of Tar Sands oil to the East Coast forexport, primarily to Europe and Asia.


During previous pipeline projects, stakeholderswere able to express concerns in front of theirwhole community. To impede the type ofopposition that has stalled past projects, thistime TransCanada has changed the format ofcommunity consultations, turning them intotrade-show-like promotional events wherestakeholders can only speak one-on-one withcompany representatives (or PR contractorshired for the occasion).


To outwit this latest ploy by TransCanada, localactivists all along the pipeline route have beenswarming these events dressed just likeTransCanada reps, but with lookalike"SaveCanada" name tags and brochures. Insteadof promoting the pipeline, the SaveCanada repscommunicate risks.

Conclusion

Policy Implications:

Copyright Law - Stop Online Piracy Act

Trade Mark Law and Trade Mark Dilution

Internet Domain Names

Personality Rights and Impersonation Laws

The Trans-Pacific Partnership

US Chamber of Commerce on the anniversary of SOPA

‘Protection of intellectual property and Internetfreedom are critically important. The Chamberwill work with members on both sides of theaisle to find an effective and commerciallyreasonable solution to address this ongoingproblem.’

Why The Yes Men Crashed the Trans-Pacific Partnership

negotiationshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c

WgtygGCbfU

17

‘Use the law:Don’t be afraid of it’

‘Remember: Don’t be afraid of suits, law- or otherwise’.



The law is a funny thing. Sometimes the YesMen ask lawyers before we do anythingparticularly dangerous. We get one of twoanswers: “Don’t do it! It’s illegal. You’ll getsued!” or “Awesome! It’s probably legal, andbesides, you’re righteous in the court of publicopinion.”


The “awesomes,” are almost always right fortwo reasons: 1) In the U.S. at least, the law doesin fact protect freedom of speech to a very highdegree (not always a good thing: corporatelobbying is also considered free speech), and 2)corporations don’t sue you because they knowhow it can blow back on them and they want toavoid having yet more egg on their big, blank,mechanical faces.

3. The Youth for Climate Truth

Koch Industries v. The Youth for Climate Truth

Fake Press Release

WICHITA, Kan – Koch Industries remainscommitted to environmental responsibility andstewardship, announcing today that it willrestructure its support for organisations thatundertake climate change research and advocacy.Since its founding, Koch Industries has beenfocused on achieving environmental excellenceand using resources efficiently. Throughextensive and award-winning efforts andinvestments, Koch Industries has implemented

18

Fake Press Release

… innovative practices that reduce energy useand greenhouse gas emissions in themanufacture and distribution of our products.Based on recent internal evaluations of KochIndustries priorities, the company will berestructuring its support of climate changeresearch and advocacy initiatives and willdiscontinue contributions to groups whosepositions on climate change no longer matchthose of the company's leadership, beginning inJanuary 2011

Koch Industries Inc. v. John Does 1-25 (United States

District Court for the District of Utah’, 2010 WL 5572546.

Koch Industries’ Complaint

Koch Industries Inc is a firm believer in ournation's First Amendment and the right to freespeech. This lawsuit was filed in response to awilful act of identity theft, theft of intellectualproperty and impersonation that extends beyondthe boundaries of free speech. It was a publicityand fundraising stunt perpetrated with the intentto deceive and confuse the public, and disruptand harm Koch Industries' business andreputation.


The company accused the pranksters ofviolating federal laws on trademarks, unfaircompetition, cybersquatting, and violations ofthe Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Moreover, itdemanded that two Utah-based domain hostingcompanies called Bluehost.com and Fastdomain. com to release theidentities of those who had registered thewebsite address used to send the prank pressrelease.


The complaint listed the anonymousdefendant(s) only as ‘John Does 1-25’. Thecompany maintained: ‘This is not a lawsuit aboutfreedom of speech. We believe in a vigorouspolitical debate. We are not seeking in any wayto silence our critics. This lawsuit was filedbecause the integrity of our computer systemsand our valuable intellectual property wascompromised and used without permission, inviolation of the Terms of Service and federallaw ’

The Youth for Climate Truth

The Koch brothers and Koch Industries spendtens of millions of dollars to spreadmisinformation about the real dangers of climatechange. In doing so, they hide the truth of whatclimate scientists have discovered – that theclimate change people have created is expensive,deadly and getting worse. They get a taxdeduction for funding groups that put out bogus'in-faux-mation' that hides the climate changethreat and ultimately benefits their fossil fuel…

19

The Youth for Climate Truth

… companies' bottom line. While our pressrelease was a spoof, Koch's funding of climatechange denial is real. The billionaire Kochbrothers fund misinformation to hide the threatof climate change to enrich themselves. That'swrong.

Public Citizen

The public interest organisation, Public Citizen,appeared on behalf of the defendants – calledYouth for Climate Truth – and filed a motionwith the Utah court seeking to quash the KochIndustries’ subpoenas and prevent from usingthe information that they had extracted from thedomain hosting companies. Public Citizenargued that trademark protections are aimed atcommercial uses, not political speech, and thatthe First Amendment fully protects politicalspeech.

Public Citizen

“Our clients came to us because Public Citizenhas a track record of defending free speech onthe Internet. The US Constitution's FirstAmendment clearly protects the right to speakanonymously. Corporations and other powerfulinstitutions should not be permitted to unmasktheir critics simply because they can hire lawyersand file a lawsuit. Despite what it says, Kochhas shown a shocking disregard for freedom ofspeech.”

Koch Industries Inc. v. John Does, 1-25 2011 WL 1775765 (D.

Utah)

Kimball J on Trademark Law #1

In this case, Defendants’ press release and fakewebsite did not relate to any goods or servicesand were only political in nature. Not only didthe press release and website not relate toDefendants’ goods and services, they did notrelate to Koch’s goods and services. The pressrelease addressed only Koch’s views on politicalissues, it did not address Koch’s commercialgoods and services. At most, the press releaserelated to how Koch spends its profits and withwhom it does business.


The court fails to see any allegation thatDefendants’ conduct interfered with Koch’sbusiness activities. Defendants’ press releaserelated only to Koch’s political views andactivities. There was not even any reference toany of Koch’s products or business practices.Furthermore, none of the media outlets whoreceived the press release believed it. The onlypress coverage of Defendants’ conduct referredto it as a hoax

20


The Lanham Act regulates only economic, notideological or political,competition. “Competition in the marketplaceof ideas” is precisely what the First Amendmentis designed to protect.

Kimball J on Cybersquatting #2

In this case, Koch does not allege thatDefendants registered koch-inc.com with theintent to sell it for profit. Nor does Koch allegethat Defendants intended to profit by divertingcustomers from Koch's own site. The hoaxwebsite was not designed to sell anything andneither does Koch's actual website. There wasno commercial purpose to the hoax website,only a political purpose.


Koch alleges that Defendants profited from thesite by using Koch's mark to call attention toand promote their agenda. Given thatDefendants set up and operated the websitecompletely anonymously, the only agenda theycould have been promoting was the message,not any entity. The website, for the few hours itwas up and running, did not solicit funding orprovide any method by which donations couldbe made.


Defendants' anonymity would have madedonations impossible. Therefore, Defendants'conduct is not the type of harm that the ACPAwas designed to protect.

Kimball J on CFAA #3

Defendants were given unimpeded access to theinformation on Koch’s public website. Koch’scomplaint is not that Defendants obtained theinformation without authorization, but ratherthat they ultimately used the information in anunwanted manner. The CFAA addresses onlythe act of trespassing or breaking into aprotected computer system; it does not purportto regulate the various uses to whichinformation may be put.

Kimball J on Anonymity #4

‘A growing number of courts have recognizedthat civil subpoenas seeking informationregarding anonymous speakers raise FirstAmendment concerns’.

‘If Internet users could be stripped of [their]anonymity by a civil subpoena enforced underthe liberal rules of civil discovery, this wouldhave a significant chilling effect on Internetcommunications and … thus on basic FirstAmendment rights.’

21

Kimball J on Anonymity #4

‘Because the court has granted Defendants’motion to dismiss and determined that Koch’sComplaint does not state any claims upon whichrelief may be granted, the court quashes thesubpoenas this court previously allowed to beserved and grants Defendants’ request for aprotective order preventing the disclosure of anyindividual’s identity that may have beendisclosed through the third parties’ compliancewith the subpoenas.’

Youth for Climate Truth

The court's ruling is a victory for anyone like usspeaking out against corporations that use theirfortunes to mislead the public about the seriousdangers of climate change. The judge's verdict isa blow to Koch's efforts to scare critics of theirmulti-million dollar climate denial campaign intosilence. We will never go public. We're not in itfor personal fame, just trying to stop the KochBrothers and Koch Industries from lying aboutthe true threats from climate change.

Public Citizen

The [ruling] is an important victory for freespeech online. The judge ruled that Youth forClimate Truth had a First Amendment right toissue its satirical press release and website – inwhich the group impersonated Koch andannounced that the company had reversed itsposition on climate change – in an effort to callattention to Koch's bankrolling efforts to denyclimate change…

Public Citizen

We are gratified that the court affirmed ourclients' First Amendment right to engage inanonymous political speech and rejected Koch'sbaseless legal theories. This lawsuit was a well-financed attempt by Koch to bully its politicalopponents into submission..

4. Bidder 70

22

Bidder 70: Documentary

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=27vl_VbehIs

Tim DeChristopher

Tim DeChristopher – known as Bidder 70 –protested a Bureau of Land Management oil andgas lease auction by successfully bidding on 14parcels of land, without any intention of payingfor the purchases.

Tim DeChristopher

The rule of law is dependent upon a governmentthat is willing to abide by the law. Disrespect forthe rule of law begins when the governmentbelieves itself and its corporate sponsors to beabove the law.

Mr Huber claims that the seriousness of myoffense was that I “obstructed lawfulgovernment proceedings.” But the auction inquestion was not a lawful proceeding.

Tim DeChristopher

This law was put into effect to mitigate theimpacts of catastrophic climate change anddefend a livable future on this planet. This lawwas about protecting the survival of younggenerations. That’s kind of a big deal. It’s a verybig deal to me. If the government is going torefuse to step up to that responsibility to defenda livable future, I believe that creates a moralimperative for me and other citizens.

Tim DeChristopher

My future, and the future of everyone I careabout, is being traded for short term profits. Itake that very personally. Until our leaders takeseriously their responsibility to pass on a healthyand just world to the next generation, I willcontinue this fight.

23

Tim DeChristopher

DeChristopher was convicted of an indictment;and sentenced for two years. On appeal, thejudge noted that “mixed in with his argumentabout selective prosecution, Defendant raisesthe spectre of retaliatory sentencing”. The judgeobserved that the “Defendant’s statements thathe would ‘continue to fight’ and his view that itwas ‘fine to break the law’ were highly relevantto these sentencing factors”.

Tim DeChristopher

The climate activist was released from FederalPrison after 21 months of imprisonment.

DeChristopher is currently the subject of adocumentary film called Bidder 70.

Bill McKibbenBill McKibben on the DeChristopher Trial

"Tim has shown the power of civil disobedienceto shine a light - the government should begiving him a medal, not a sentence, and in timethis will be recalled as a key early battle in thecentury's long fight for a liveable climate.

Bill McKibben on the DeChristopher Trial

Just in case the federal government thinks thatit's intimidating people into silence with thiskind of prosecution, think again. In fact, this isprecisely the sort of event that reminds us justwhy we need a real, mass mobilization to stopthe climate crisis.

Tim took a brave and lonely stand; it’s time tomake sure that in the future bravery comes inbigger quantities."

5. Coal in Court: the Whitehaven Case

24

Jonathan Moylan

The Whitehaven Hoax: Ratbag Act or Legitimate Protest?

Professor Sarah Joseph

Monash University

http://castancentre.com/2013/01/14/the-whitehaven-hoax-ratbag-act-or-

legitimate-protest/

The Whitehaven Hoax

On the 7 January, environmental activistJonathan Moylan put out a fake press releasepurporting to convey a decision by the ANZbank to withdraw its $1.2 billion loan toWhitehaven Coal for environmental reasons. Asa result, shares in Whitehaven plunged by $314million before recovering to pre-hoax levels.

The Whitehaven Hoax

Moylan is now being investigated by theAustralian Securities and InvestmentsCommission (“ASIC”) for serious breaches ofcorporations law, in allegedly engaging inmisleading and deceptive conduct whichdestabilises the stock market. He could face jailtime. He has said that his intention was not tocause people to lose money, that he is sorry, andthat he is prepared to face the legalconsequences.

The Whitehaven Hoax

Moylan explained that he sent out the pressrelease that ANZ “should” have sent. The stuntwas meant to highlight ANZ’s “dirty loan” for aproject which he believes will unduly harm theenvironment. Others have supported his actionsas highlighting the immorality of financing newcoal projects in the face of the dangers ofclimate change.

Coal in Court

Matthew Rimmer

ANU College of Law

http://theconversation.com/coal-in-court-whitehaven-climate-change-and-

civil-disobedience-15991

25

The Whitehaven Coal Hoax

In 2013, there has been much controversy overthe Whitehaven Coal Hoax.

Jonathan Moylan sent out a fake press release,which announced the ANZ bank had cancelledits A$1.2 billion financial loan facility for theWhitehaven Coal mine in New South Wales onethical grounds. This announcement wasreported in the media, before it was identified asa hoax. The share price of Whitehaven Coaldropped with the news.


There has been much debate about the nature ofthe hoax. Was it an act of civil disobedience? Aspoof? Culture-jamming? Ratbag mischief?Misleading and deceptive conduct? Or corporatefraud?

Jonathan Moylan commented that the actionwas a spoof: “We think it is a bit like the Chasergetting into APEC, or the Yes Men announcingthat Union Carbide had shut down.”

SBS interview with Jonathan Moylan


In July 2013, the Australian Securities andInvestment Commission (ASIC) chargedMoylan with the offence of breaching section1041E of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)through the making of false or misleadingstatements. He faces a maximum fine ofA$495,000 and imprisonment for up to tenyears.

CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 -SECT 1041E

False or misleading statements (1) A personmust not (whether in this jurisdiction orelsewhere) make a statement, or disseminateinformation, if:

(a) the statement or information is false in amaterial particular or is materially misleading;and

(b) the statement or information is likely:

(i) to induce persons in this jurisdiction to applyfor financial products; or


(ii) to induce persons in this jurisdiction todispose of or acquire financial products; or

(iii) to have the effect of increasing, reducing,maintaining or stabilising the price for trading infinancial products on a financial marketoperated in this jurisdiction; and


(c) when the person makes the statement, ordisseminates the information:

(i) the person does not care whether thestatement or information is true or false; or

(ii) the person knows, or ought reasonably tohave known, that the statement or informationis false in a material particular or is materiallymisleading.

26


Such a decision was welcomed by thoseoutraged, misled, or embarrassed by theWhitehaven Coal Hoax. Defenders of Moylan,like Bernard Keane, have accused ASIC of“double standards”. The much awaited case willhighlight how corporations law will deal withcivil disobedience by climate activists.

John Gay, Jonathan Moylan and a tale of two ASICs

Bernard Keane

http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/09/26/john-gay-jonathan-moylan-and-a-

tale-of-two-asics/

Bernard Keane

While ASIC was waving through a minimal finefor insider trading, it was ramping up its pursuitof Jonathan Moylan, the man behind theWhitehaven Coal hoax in early January. Earlierthis week, Moylan’s prosecution for “false andmisleading statements” was moved to the NSWSupreme Court at the request of prosecutors.Moylan faces up to 10 years in prison.

Bernard Keane

What’s become clear as ASIC’s pursuit ofMoylan has dragged on its that the 9% intra-dayblip Moylan’s prank caused on January 7 is asnothing compared to what the company’smanagement and board have managed since.While the ASX 200 has surged to multi-yearhighs, the company’s share price has collapsedas Whitehaven reported significant losses andNathan Tinkler bailed out.

Conclusion

The Fossil Fuel Resistance.pptpodcast.bze.org.au/storage/friday/discGroup/... · Greenpeace on...

Documents

Transcript of The Fossil Fuel Resistance.pptpodcast.bze.org.au/storage/friday/discGroup/... · Greenpeace on...