A North Dakota jury’s award of $660 million to the developer of the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) is casting doubt on the fiscal survival of Greenpeace and raising questions on whether the environmental group’s activism is free speech or criminal incitement.

Energy Transfer, the pipeline’s developer, sued Greenpeace USA, Greenpeace International, and Greenpeace Fund following extensive and often violent protests in 2016 and 2017 over the construction of DAPL.

The case has raised questions as to whether the organization’s climate activism is protected free speech or if it’s inciting violent extremism like the destructive Black Lives Matter riots and the current vandalism and destruction of Tesla vehicles in by groups in opposition to DOGE.

In North Dakota, the jury declined to hold these three entities responsible for the property damage caused by protestors but agreed that they were responsible for defamation, conspiracy, interference with business dealings and trespassing on the part of the protestors and awarded Energy Transfer more than double what it asked for.

Liberty Nation reports the verdict may be an indication that Greenpeace has crossed a line by defaming a lawful business and paying protestors to engage in destructive attacks.

Greenpeace attorneys say that their clients’ “rights to peaceful protest and free speech” are under attack.

Greenpeace interim executive director Sushma Raman claims that the trial was part of a push by corporations to “weaponize our courts” and that the jury’s verdict was “a broader effort by corporations to stifle dissent.”

But the jury didn’t see a peaceful exercise of free speech being squelched by corporate greed.

They saw an organization that has historically prided itself on taking increasingly aggressive actions to advance its environmental agenda and concluded that Greenpeace was attacking the legal freedoms of Energy Transfer by causing the company financial injury.