Last week’s $667 million jury verdict against Greenpeace wasn’t just a victory for the pipeline company that sued them, Energy Transfer Partners (ETP), but also a shot across the bow against every leftist nonprofit who engages in similar activities.

Greenpeace asserts that its involvement in the Dakota Access Pipeline debacle was limited to supplying materials and training, activities they argue are protected under the First Amendment. However, the events at the Standing Rock camp escalated well beyond loud demonstrations, involving vandalism, assaults on law enforcement, and reputational harm from baseless accusations directed at ETP to financial institutions—none of which fall under First Amendment protections.

Still, One author at City Journal observes that the unrest at Standing Rock bears a striking resemblance to other recent left-leaning protests.

In a City Journal article about the case, I noted similarities between the anti-pipeline protests near North Dakota’s Standing Rock Indian Reservation and other mass actions, including Black Lives Matter protests in 2020 and the anti-Israel demonstrations that erupted around the United States after the October 7 attacks. Making an analogy to hybrid warfare, I described these as “hybrid protests,” in which masses of peaceful demonstrators are joined by smaller groups of trained agitators who tip the events toward violence. As Park MacDougald has reported, these loose networks of troublemakers are often financially supported “by a vast web of progressive nonprofits, NGOs, foundations, and dark-money groups.”

Energy Transfer’s suit against Greenpeace represents the first major success in exposing and penalizing the putatively legitimate nonprofits that funnel money and material support to the lawbreakers embedding themselves in these hybrid protests. If the enormous verdict survives the inevitable appeals, it will be a major shot across the bows of progressive organizations that quietly foment political mayhem while maintaining plausible deniability.

There have been any number of so-called protests for over ten years and their size and scope intensified after Donald Trump became President in 2016. Some examples are the Black Lives Matter and George Floyd riots, eco-radicals vandalizing priceless pieces of art and memorials along with blocking traffic, and (more recently) students taking over and occupying buildings on college and university campuses against Israel’s efforts in the Gaza Strip.

Yet most of the the above mostly peaceful protests not only degenerated into violence of some kind but they also had a leftist nonprofit backed by dark money financing the trainings and recruitments of the nihilists who participated, including for the so-called Tesla Takedown.

The Greenpeace legal battle spanned 8 years before reaching a verdict. Despite the lengthy process, the hefty $667 million ruling serves as a warning to other left-leaning activists that illegal actions won’t always be shielded by the guise of lawful protest and free speech.

In essence, peacefully demonstrating against Tesla falls under constitutional protection. However, seizing buildings, clashing with law enforcement, damaging vehicles, or committing arson crosses the line into unprotected territory. Though it might take time, organizations endorsing such hybrid protests should take note that they can face consequences for their involvement.

Elon Musk should seriously consider using Energy Transfer Partners’ logic in a lawsuit against Indivisible and other Leftist groups backing the terrorism conducted against his company. A very good way to put the Left down is to hit them right where it hurts: in their collective wallets.