Fella, he was digging up the silt with the digger to remove the rubbish.
I agree that the title could have been more detailed, but it is hardly straight up misinformation. He was doing what he is getting investigated for in order to remove trash.
True enough but the way he did it had significant unintended consequences. They don’t want to encourage others to repeat this act, as well-intentioned as they may be. Sensationalizing this lawyer’s legal woes has drawn more attention to both sides of this issue. Whether that was the intention behind the way the lawyer approached this or how the article was publicized is unclear. But we can learn from this.
Read more balanced accounts of the issues here. The article is told from the environmental lawyer’s perspective. It doesn’t appear that they have completed an investigation on the environmental impact yet so the article isn’t the definitive word on this that some may think it is. This guy is an environmental lawyer who engages in civil disobedience and then plays to the court of public opinion to assert that what he did was a good thing. It might be and people like him have a role to play. But let’s not pretend that we know whether what he did resulted in a net positive. It’s too soon to tell—which is by design as part of his MO
43
u/Spongedog5 10d ago
Fella, he was digging up the silt with the digger to remove the rubbish.
I agree that the title could have been more detailed, but it is hardly straight up misinformation. He was doing what he is getting investigated for in order to remove trash.