Looks like typical misdirection on the part of the enviro group to me. They made statements that were designed to scare the general public and had zero basis in truth. If you speak the truth and can back your statements up, then you've got no reason to fear ending up in court. I don't know many lawyers that would take on a case like this if they know that they're going to loose it.
"Our response is (the statements) are fair comment and as an environmental organization, that's what we do," he said.
The lawsuit is an example of a "classic SLAPP suit," he charged, an acronym for strategic lawsuit against public participation.
"We say its main goal is to not only put a chill on our organization, but to send a message to all citizens that if you comment on this project, you could very well likely receive papers in the mail and have to spend considerable time and resources defending yourself."
Well if their group was making statements that were based on scientific truth instead of alarmist "The sky is falling" ones that were designed to scare the public they wouldn't be in this mess to start with. They can't seem to learn the fact that "Bought Science" will in time turn around and bite you where the sun don't shine. Even more so when it is found out by the public.
Devon Page, executive director of Ecojustice, said his organization believes the lawsuit is aimed at stifling public discourse.
Well since public comment periods are required by law these cases, I fail to see this as anything other than yet more misdirection designed to inflame the public against the project in question.
