Koch email pranksters speak out for the first time
Exclusive interview with the anonymous pranksters defending a civic lawsuit pursued by Koch Industries
Last December, on the final day of the Cancún climate talks, a press release landed in my inbox with the heading, "Koch Industries Announces New Environmental Commitments". The release began:
WICHITA, Kan – Koch Industries remains committed to environmental responsibility and stewardship, announcing today that it will restructure its support for organisations that undertake climate change research and advocacy.
Since its founding, Koch Industries has been focused on achieving environmental excellence and using resources efficiently. Through extensive and award-winning efforts and investments, Koch Industries has implemented innovative practices that reduce energy use and greenhouse gas emissions in the manufacture and distribution of our products.
Based on recent internal evaluations of Koch Industries priorities, the company will be restructuring its support of climate change research and advocacy initiatives and will discontinue contributions to groups whose positions on climate change no longer match those of the company's leadership, beginning in January 2011…
If true, this was an extraordinary development. Koch Industries, said to be the largest private company in the US with a wide portfolio or energy and chemical manufacturing interests, has developed what some would describe as a notorious reputation in recent years for funding rightwing US thinktanks and Tea Party groups opposed to regulation aimed at addressing environmental concerns such as climate change. Greenpeace and other campaign groups have strongly criticised the company for their stance. And just last weekend, campaigners rallied outside a "secret" fundraising meeting at a Palm Springs golf resort hosted by the billionaire Koch brothers who control Koch Industries.
But I immediately smelled a rat. First, given Koch's stance on these issues, the contents of the press release seemed highly unlikely to be true. Second, the domain name that the email was sent from, although very similar, was not the one used by Koch Industries -- "koch-inc.com" as opposed to "kochind.com."
I forwarded it to colleagues asking whether they thought, like me, it might be the work of the famous pranksters The Yes Men and, later that day, the press release was mentioned on the Guardian's Cancún live blogwith the following comment: "This has hoaxsters The Yes Men written all over it, I think, not least in the tell-tale fake domain name given for the press officer at the bottom. What do you think?"
Evidently, the email had been sent to a number of media outlets as others soon reported on it, too. The New York Times, for example, also reached the same conclusion that it was likely the work of The Yes Men. But the incident was quickly forgotten.
Then, in late December 2010, papers lodged with a district court in Utah revealed that Koch Industries had not exactly seen the funny side of this well-executed prank. The company accused the pranksters of violating federal laws on trademarks, cybersquatting, unfair competition and violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and, as a first step to pursuing a civic prosecution, was now seeking two Utah-based domain hosting companies called Bluehost.com and Fastdomain.com to release the identities of those who had registered the website address used to send the prank press release. The papers (pdf) listed the anonymous defendant(s) only as "John Does 1-25", as is the legal tradition in the US.
A week later, US District Judge Dale Kimball duly granted a motion authorising subpoenas to be sent to the domain hosting companies demanding they pass the defendants' details to Koch Industries. A spokesperson for Bluehost told the Associated Press a few days later that this information had been quickly handed over to Koch Industries. He said: "We are not in the business of harbouring, you know, felons and crooks. We are not about that. This isn't WikiLeaks. We comply with the law here."
Meanwhile, Koch Industries released the following statement:
Koch Industries Inc is a firm believer in our nation's First Amendment and the right to free speech. This lawsuit was filed in response to a wilful act of identity theft, theft of intellectual property and impersonation that extends beyond the boundaries of free speech. It was a publicity and fundraising stunt perpetrated with the intent to deceive and confuse the public, and disrupt and harm Koch Industries' business and reputation.
Last week, a Washington DC-based legal advocacy group called Public Citizen, which "defends democracy from corporate greed", said it was now representing the defendants – who, it was revealed for the first time, call themselves Youth for Climate Truth – and that it had filed a motion with the Utah court seeking to "quash" Koch's subpoenas and prevent them from acting on any information that they had already managed to extract from the domain hosting companies.
Public Citizen argued that trademark protections are aimed at commercial uses, not political speech, and that the First Amendment fully protects political speech.
The one voice still missing from this whole episode is that of Youth for Climate Truth, who must now defend themselves and their actions against the full legal might of the US's largest private company. So I approached their lawyer (who is acting on a pro-bono basis) and asked if they were prepared to be interviewed. Wishing to maintain their anonymity, it was agreed that they would answer questions by email through their lawyer…
You describe yourself as the 'Youth for Climate Truth'. Please can you give me a better sense of your formation, aims, and composition? Without revealing your identities, what/who is YCT? When/how did you form? Do you have a 'mission statement'? And can you give me a broad geographical sense of where you are located? For example, are you all US citizens? Do you come from one state? How many of you are there?
Actually, we're just a bunch of young people. Youth for Climate Truth is a useful way to describe our hope and our purpose. We are young Americans who think the billionaire Koch brothers should stop using their company's wealth to fund misinformation to enrich themselves, at the expense of other Americans, who deserve to know how serious climate change really is.Was the Koch prank email your first action as a group?First and only. 2010 was the hottest year on record. Climate change is getting worse. The Koch brothers' misinformation campaign has confused Americans and slowed progress toward job-creating climate change solutions.Why did you specifically target Koch Industries?The Koch brothers and Koch Industries spend tens of millions of dollars to spread misinformation about the real dangers of climate change. In doing so, they hide the truth of what climate scientists have discovered – that the climate change people have created is expensive, deadly and getting worse. They get a tax deduction for funding groups that put out bogus 'in-faux-mation' that hides the climate change threat and ultimately benefits their fossil fuel companies' bottom line.
While our press release was a spoof, Koch's funding of climate change denial is real. The billionaire Koch brothers fund misinformation to hide the threat of climate change to enrich themselves. That's wrong.Who/what else might you likely target in the future?There won't be a next time - this was a one-time spoof for us. Koch-funded climate inaction threatens our generation's security and prosperity and America's future success, so we told the truth about what Koch is doing in a creative way. But there are millions of other youth for climate truth all over the country who understand the seriousness of what climate scientists have discovered. Those youth for climate truth will keep calling out people who spread misinformation, and they'll keep working toward job-creating solutions to climate change.Please provide a comment in response to Koch's legal response to your action.Instead of trying to bully us with a baseless lawsuit, the Koch brothers should do exactly what our spoof press release suggests. They should stop funding misinformation that hides the facts - climate change is expensive, deadly and getting worse. There are job-creating solutions to climate change. But the companies with those clean energy solutions can't get their technologies out to Americans because the Kochs and others spend tens of millions of dollars to confuse people.Do you seek to remain anonymous forever, or have you only been forced into this route because of Koch's legal actions?The real story here is that the Koch brothers spend tens of millions of dollars to keep Americans in the dark about the truth of the climate change threat. We have no interest in becoming rich or famous because we pointed out the Koch brothers are using their company's profits to spread misinformation about climate change that benefits their fossil fuel company's bottom line.
I approached Koch Industries for a response to these comments. It directed me to this statement currently posted on its website:
This is not a lawsuit about freedom of speech. We believe in a vigorous political debate. We are not seeking in any way to silence our critics. This lawsuit was filed because the integrity of our computer systems and our valuable intellectual property was compromised and used without permission, in violation of the Terms of Service and federal law.
Youth for Climate Truth's lawyers have sent me this, in response to Koch's statement:
Our clients came to us because Public Citizen has a track record of defending free speech on the Internet. The US Constitution's First Amendment clearly protects the right to speak anonymously. Corporations and other powerful institutions should not be permitted to unmask their critics simply because they can hire lawyers and file a lawsuit.
Despite what it says, Koch has shown a shocking disregard for freedom of speech. They ran to court and sought to strip our clients' anonymity without even giving our clients' notice or an opportunity to defend themselves. And Koch almost succeeded. This kind of lawsuit can have a serious chilling effect on anonymous political speech.
Koch complaints about the integrity of its computer system and intellectual property are groundless. They have accused our clients of illegal computer hacking – a serious crime. But all our clients did was use information that was publicly available on Koch's website. Koch's legal theory would criminalize most users of the Internet.
Koch also claims trademark infringement. But our clients weren't selling any products or services in competition with Koch; they were making a political statement. The only marketplace that's relevant here is the marketplace of ideas.Ultimately, Koch may be embarrassed or upset about our clients' speech, but that's the price they pay for living in a free society.
• This article was changed on 4 February - criminal lawsuit was changed to read civic lawsuit
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment