PDA

View Full Version : When Fracking and Free Speech Collide



Green Arrow
09-10-2014, 11:12 PM
Via Al Jazeera America (http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/9/9/fracking-free-speech.html):


What started as a short YouTube video and a couple of local news interviews about a Texas landowner being able to light his water on fire has ballooned into a free speech fight that’s being closely watched by anti-fracking activists across the country.

Steve Lipsky has complained for years that fracking company Range Resources polluted his drinking water and streams that run through his property. The company sued him in 2011 for defaming its reputation for environmental stewardship.


Now Lipsky will have a chance to argue his case in front of the Texas Supreme Court, The Texas Tribune reported this week. The court will decide whether his right to free speech renders Range’s defamation case moot. If the court rules in his favor, the company’s lawsuit will be thrown out. If that doesn’t happen, he may be on the hook for $3 million.


The case won’t be heard until December, but environmentalists are already drawing parallels between it and other incidents across the U.S. in which hydraulic fracturing companies and anti-fracking activists have butted heads. Lipsky’s supporters say his case adds to a growing list of instances that show governments and courts are too quick to kowtow to industry demands. But if he wins, they say, it could embolden the anti-fracking movement across the country by letting activists know they’re free to badmouth fracking companies without fear of retribution.


“Range has a right to protect its reputation, but the speech they’re complaining about is protected speech,” Lipsky’s lawyer Joe Sibley said. “If we’re going to allow companies to sue people for defamation every time they don’t like what’s being said, then that basically allows corporations to silence public participation.”


Lipsky’s saga began in 2010, when he found that he could ignite the wells and streams on his property in Parker County by holding a lighter up to them. He uploaded videos of his discovery to YouTube, was interviewed by local reporters and was featured in the documentary “Gasland Part II.” He blamed drilling by Range Resources in the nearby Barnett Shale for his misfortune. The Environmental Protection Agency agreed and ordered Range to pay for fresh drinking water for Lipsky and one of his neighbors. But then the EPA dropped its investigation without giving reason, and the Texas Railroad Commission — which oversees fracking in the state — said there was insufficient evidence linking Range to the contamination.

Given the apparent lack of evidence, Range has accused Lipsky of defaming the company. The Texas Supreme Court will have to look into whether a 2011 tort reform law would allow the court to dismiss Range’s case before it is heard in a lower court. But regardless of what the court decides, his lawyer says the damage has already been done.

I think the most telling part of this is what Lipsky's lawyer said: "If we’re going to allow companies to sue people for defamation every time they don’t like what’s being said, then that basically allows corporations to silence public participation."

Should companies really be allowed to sue private citizens for exercising their right to free speech?

nic34
09-10-2014, 11:17 PM
If companies want to protect their reputations, they should not pollute the g-damn drinking water. How's that for free advice?

Private Pickle
09-11-2014, 01:37 AM
Via Al Jazeera America (http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/9/9/fracking-free-speech.html):



I think the most telling part of this is what Lipsky's lawyer said: "If we’re going to allow companies to sue people for defamation every time they don’t like what’s being said, then that basically allows corporations to silence public participation."

Should companies really be allowed to sue private citizens for exercising their right to free speech?

Absolutely if what the citizen is saying is completely false.

Private Pickle
09-11-2014, 01:37 AM
If companies want to protect their reputations, they should not pollute the g-damn drinking water. How's that for free advice?

Free enough.

Bob
09-11-2014, 03:20 AM
Via Al Jazeera America (http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/9/9/fracking-free-speech.html):



I think the most telling part of this is what Lipsky's lawyer said: "If we’re going to allow companies to sue people for defamation every time they don’t like what’s being said, then that basically allows corporations to silence public participation."

Should companies really be allowed to sue private citizens for exercising their right to free speech?

Come on, the dude lost in the trial court and he is appealing it. He lost in an appeals court too.

Free speech has to be true speech, when it concerns talking about others. And there is that malicious part too in the law. The company proved to the trial court the dude was malicious and lied.

The Supreme court won't side with the liar.

Bob
09-11-2014, 03:22 AM
If companies want to protect their reputations, they should not pollute the g-damn drinking water. How's that for free advice?

The trial court tried it based on the FACTS of the case then ruled against the liar. When he lied about the company, it was malicious. That is why he lost in two courts to date.

Gerrard Winstanley
09-11-2014, 04:21 AM
Free speech has to be true speech, when it concerns talking about others.
Truth is nil but a collective hunch.

Peter1469
09-11-2014, 06:13 AM
I assume that they are using the typical slander and libel civil actions.

If so, truth is a 100% defense. Also I expect these companies would merit public person status, making it much harder for them to win such a lawsuit.

It seems to me a good way for activists to get a court to recognize their views that fracking can cause environmental damage.

nic34
09-11-2014, 09:15 AM
The trial court tried it based on the FACTS of the case then ruled against the liar. When he lied about the company, it was malicious. That is why he lost in two courts to date.

Interesting bob, considering that you didn't address what I said at all.

Chris
09-11-2014, 10:16 AM
Free speech is supposed to be protected against government intervention, not private intervention.

Captain Obvious
09-11-2014, 10:31 AM
Free speech is supposed to be protected against government intervention, not private intervention.

Those two institutions are blending.

CreepyOldDude
09-11-2014, 11:21 AM
Come on, the dude lost in the trial court and he is appealing it. He lost in an appeals court too.

Free speech has to be true speech, when it concerns talking about others. And there is that malicious part too in the law. The company proved to the trial court the dude was malicious and lied.

The Supreme court won't side with the liar.
Bob, come on, the guy hasn't been to the lower court to lose yet, according to the article.
The Texas Supreme Court will have to look into whether a 2011 tort reform law would allow the court to dismiss Range’s case before it is heard in a lower court.

You can't dismiss it before it's heard in the lower court, if it's already been decided in the lower court.

Green Arrow
09-11-2014, 02:16 PM
Free speech is supposed to be protected against government intervention, not private intervention.

But in this case, the private institution is trying to get government intervention.

Chris
09-11-2014, 02:18 PM
But in this case, the private institution is trying to get government intervention.

Civil court, as I understand it. The government isn't bringing the suit, a civilian is.

Green Arrow
09-11-2014, 02:39 PM
Civil court, as I understand it. The government isn't bringing the suit, a civilian is.

The court is government. Rather than addressing the issue themselves, they are getting the government to intervene on their behalf.

Chris
09-11-2014, 02:58 PM
The court is government. Rather than addressing the issue themselves, they are getting the government to intervene on their behalf.

They're bringing suit because it's the only recourse they have. It's a defamation suit, defamation isn't free speech.

Now should that be the only recourse people have, government courts, well, I would rather it weren't, but government seems to demand a monopoly.

Bob
09-11-2014, 03:08 PM
The court is government. Rather than addressing the issue themselves, they are getting the government to intervene on their behalf.

That is what courts are in business to do Green Arrow

Bob
09-11-2014, 03:11 PM
But in this case, the private institution is trying to get government intervention.

Slander is spoken and Libel is written. Both make things up about others that is malicious and untrue. The man should not have violated law.

Green Arrow
09-11-2014, 03:15 PM
Slander is spoken and Libel is written. Both make things up about others that is malicious and untrue. The man should not have violated law.

There's no evidence that he did.

Bob
09-11-2014, 03:18 PM
@Bob (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1013), come on, the guy hasn't been to the lower court to lose yet, according to the article.

You can't dismiss it before it's heard in the lower court, if it's already been decided in the lower court.

I stand corrected. Thank you for bringing that to my attention. I don't need to repeat the article but to say as it stands, the plaintiff lost to the commission. I expect it operates as a court of law does.

Bob
09-11-2014, 03:19 PM
There's no evidence that he did.

Actually he hangs by his own comments.

Green Arrow
09-11-2014, 03:20 PM
Actually he hangs by his own comments.

Do explain.

Chloe
09-13-2014, 03:39 PM
Environment America's video on fracking

http://youtu.be/qkPaqO-4TlM

Peter1469
09-13-2014, 07:04 PM
Fracking can be done safely. The problem is cutting corners.

Anyway, I am on record as advocating for a complete break from fossil fuels. (http://energyvictory.net/)

I know, Big Oil has a hit out on me.

Captain Obvious
09-13-2014, 08:59 PM
Fracking can be done safely. The problem is cutting corners.

Anyway, I am on record as advocating for a complete break from fossil fuels. (http://energyvictory.net/)

I know, Big Oil has a hit out on me.

Much of our resource extraction and consumption can be done safely and environmentally efficiently, homo economicus dictates otherwise.

The true cost of resource extraction and consumption are borne, just most of that cost is borne by third parties and not by shareholders.