About two weeks ago there was an article in the Rapid City (South Dakota) Journal highlighting how several Greenpeace activists have yet to complete their court ordered community service. The community service was ordered on January 4, 2010 by a Federal district court as a result of the conviction of these activists in an illegal protest at Mount Rushmore during July 2009.
In the article titled “Most Greenpeace Activists Still Haven’t Done Community Service for Rushmore Stunt,” we learn that at least nine of the eleven Greenpeace activists have yet to begin their up to 100 hours of court-ordered community service. That community service sentence was ordered to be completed within one year of sentencing (i.e., prior to January 4, 2011), within the national park system, and preferably at the Mount Rushmore memorial. In the article, a Greenpeace spokesperson responded to the Rapid City Journal’s inquiries about the delay in the activists serving their sentences with the following:
All of the activists say their reasoning for not traveling to Mount Rushmore is that it would be too expensive; they can’t take the time off work, and they think it makes sense to have a smaller carbon footprint and avoid excessive air travel.
Certainly, this Greenpeace commentary begs the obvious questions.
- How is it that the Greenpeace activists found the money to travel to Mount Rushmore to mount the original illegal protest?
- Why is it that these individuals were able to find time off of work for the original illegal action but now somehow they can’t obtain the time off to “pay the piper”?
- And why weren’t they worried about their carbon footprint before they departed to participate in an illegal action?
The answer to all three questions is probably just as obvious. Fulfilling the community service sentence doesn’t generate any publicity whereas the original protest action did. That’s how and why they found the money, the time, and the carbon footprint rationalizations to travel to Mount Rushmore. And if you read this blog regularly, and know even a little about the workings of Greenpeace, you will understand that the generation of publicity is one of Greenpeace’s top priorities. So, because the original action was potentially publicity-rich, it had a high priority for them. But, how high are their priorities toward paying the consequences of their actions? Well, apparently not as high. Why? Because serving their sentences does not hold as much potential for publicity. It’s a simple cost vs. benefit analysis.
However, if the media and activism analysts such as I continue to inquire as to the timely completion of these sentences, then those inquiries, like the Rapid City Journal article, would generate the additional publicity that Greenpeace craves, re-publicizing the original incident all over again. Could their delay in serving their sentences be part of a Greenpeace “reverse publicity” stunt? Perhaps.
So, maybe these inquiries only play into the hands of the media machine that is Greenpeace. If so, it might be smarter for us to ignore them and wait for the Feds to throw the convicts in a Federal clink should they commit contempt of court and not make the January 4, 2011 deadline.
We shall see.
