We sent this response to an article in Fast Company about our case and asked that it be published. Although the letter details numerous journalism flaws and basic mistakes, the magazine didn’t have the integrity to reply. That’s why we are publishing the letter in full here, so that readers can make up their own minds with the full facts.
Letters to the Editor
Among the many facts omitted from Jeff Beer’s cheerleading story on the latest of Greenpeace’s serial attacks against our company, the most obvious is this – he never contacted us for input or a chance to respond. In a story that purports to be about the virtue of public discourse, how did editors allow such a slanted piece to get past them without a quote from the subject?
While we await an answer on that journalism fumble, here are some other facts that will help provide a fuller picture for readers.
As our legal filings document, Greenpeace has devoted years to a campaign of public misrepresentations about our forestry practices, impersonated employees, initiated cyber-attacks on our customers, and harassed companies we do business with, threatening them with similar smear campaigns. They published staged photos and video falsely pretending to show forest areas impacted by our company when in reality those areas were impacted by natural causes.
In a story that found room for hyperlinks to Instagram artists, unrelated litigation, and something called Free the Nipple, why did Mr. Beer withhold a simple link to our legal case? Here is the site we have set up to provide full details on the matter.
As for Greenpeace posturing as free speech martyrs, that too falls apart on closer examination. Is Mr. Beer unaware that Greenpeace has been energetically on the side opposing free expression in the two biggest First Amendment legal cases in recent years?
They have publicly denounced the Supreme Court ruling in the Citizens United case and have applauded a group of attorneys general for a RICO investigation launched against groups Greenpeace opposes on environmental issues. That position stands against the ACLU, Free Speech Defense & Education Fund, Institute for Justice, AFL-CIO, California First Amendment Coalition, and dozens of groups across the political spectrum.
A more diligent reporter might have noticed how Greenpeace justifies its stance in those matters, which is helpfully explained on its website: “Freedom of speech does not apply to misinformation and propaganda,” Greenpeace declares. So it would appear that Greenpeace is all in favor of the RICO statute and litigating false speech. They just don’t like it when they are the defendants.
The claim that our case is a so-called SLAPP lawsuit is also demonstrably false.
We suspect however that Mr. Beer himself may have been hoodwinked by Greenpeace. The “Our Voices are Vital” campaign isn’t quite as original as they led him to believe. In fact, it closely mimics a campaign we launched in August, 2015 called “Share Your Voice.” We invited citizens and workers from communities across the boreal to speak out on how Greenpeace’s malicious attacks had impacted them directly.
Many thousands did just that, in phone calls, on social media, in large public demonstrations, and by old-fashioned snail mail – pretty much the exact same effort except, unlike Greenpeace, we didn’t cajole anyone for a cash donation. Perhaps that’s not as glamorous as the offices of the New York City-based Big Spaceship agency but apparently worth imitating. If readers are wondering how Greenpeace responded to that avalanche of heartfelt appeals about the real harm they have caused, the answer is simple: Greenpeace ignored virtually all of them.
Corporate Communications, Sustainability & Government Affairs
Resolute Forest Products