Right but speaking by principle, members of the jury should ideally be impartial when it comes to analyzing evidence.
Defamation is serious legal territory for any one or organization to be embroiled in. I don't know what the evidence was that was put against Greenpeace but it has also been embroiled in these legal battles before.
Surreal:
North Dakota jury says Greenpeace must pay $660m over Dakota pipeline protests.
The non-profit, which will appeal the decision, says lawsuits like this are aimed at ‘destroying the right to peaceful protest’.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/19/greenpeace-lawsuit-energy-transfer-dakota-pipeline
Who are these "jurists?"
It's North Dakota, conservative oil country. I don't think half of them even believe in climate change
People who don't believe in climate change shouldn't be allowed to sit on a jury.
c'mon man
I lived in North Dakota for 3 years. People there are very aware of climate change, mainly because it's caused crop yields there to increase.
Like is this true or sarcasm?
Right but speaking by principle, members of the jury should ideally be impartial when it comes to analyzing evidence.
Defamation is serious legal territory for any one or organization to be embroiled in. I don't know what the evidence was that was put against Greenpeace but it has also been embroiled in these legal battles before.