Arturo Uribe, shown refereeing a congressional candidate forum in Mesquite in 2008. (Photo by Heath Haussamen)
Activist groups call verdict in defamation lawsuit a blow to free speech
Activists were quick to decry a Doña Ana County jury’s verdict in favor of Helena Chemical Company in a civil defamation lawsuit as a “stunning blow against free speech” – and worse.
Helena’s attorney, on the other hand, told the jury before it issued its ruling that the verdict could be the first step in repairing the company’s reputation.
The jury ordered Mesquite community activist Arturo Uribe to pay Helena $75,000 in punitive damages for harming the company’s reputation, and also dismissed a counterclaim by Uribe, according to the Las Cruces Sun-News.
From the newspaper:
“Helena Chemical Co. sued Uribe – whose family lives across the street from a warehouse where the company stores and blends fertilizer – for statements made to the media and for slides he showed containing photos of a Texas City, Texas industrial accident and a child born with six fingers.”
Uribe had claimed Helena was retaliating because of a pending negligence lawsuit the Uribes and others have filed against Helena claiming their health has suffered as a result of the company’s actions. The state has fined Helena nearly half a million dollars in recent years for environmental violations, most relating to air quality.
In a posting on its Web site, Clearly New Mexico called the jury’s ruling “a stunning blow against free speech.” In prior postings, Clearly New Mexico had called Helena’s lawsuit a “‘SLAPP suit’ – a ‘strategic lawsuit against public participation,’ which is intended to censor and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense.”
“Corporations can afford extended litigation – community activists can’t,” a posting on the group’s Web site states.
In a news release, SouthWest Organizing Project went much further, saying the verdict “is an outrageous travesty of justice” and the situation in Mesquite “is textbook environmental racism.”
“Arturo’s families’ house is literally across the street from the Helena Chemical Co. There is nowhere that his children can play that won’t expose them to the smell of the chemicals coming out of that plant,” SWOP’s Tomás Garduño said in the release. “…This type of citing of toxic industries in working class communities of color is no mistake.”
“The companies think that because we have very little resources and poor access to our government that we won’t stand up for ourselves,” Garduño said. “Arturo, his family and his community are continuing a long tradition of proving those multi-national corporations wrong.”
An empowering situation
In fact, after attending a meeting Uribe and other community activists hosted in 2007 in preparation for the lawsuit against Helena, I wrote that Mesquite was leading the way in empowering Doña Ana County’s south valley:
“Were there any doubt, their growing level of activity and organization was apparent on Thursday evening, when more than 65 people showed up to a community meeting to discuss the possibility of suing Helena Chemical Company in an apparent attempt to chase it out of town.
“… Mesquite is a community that has historically allowed itself to be ignored by government. That began to change a few years ago when a handful of educated individuals in the area decided to stand up to perceived problems with Helena.
“Fair or not (there’s a strong possibility that a lawsuit will eventually determine that), many residents believe the company’s pollution has led to all sorts of health problems, including high instances of cancer, asthma and babies being born with extra fingers and toes.”
State officials have listened to the activists in Mesquite. In one news release announcing some of the violations committed by Helena, Environment Department Deputy Secretary Cindy Padilla said Helena “potentially put residents at risk by failing to monitor pollutants from the plant.”
Later, Environment Secretary Ron Curry was quoted by Tracy Dingmann, a Clearly New Mexico writer, in an interview for the New Mexico Independent as stating that Helena seemed “resistant to trying to improve the way they do business.”
“They are unique as a company so far as that, in my tenure as secretary, I don’t believe I’ve come across a company that is so unwilling to do the right thing,” Curry was quoted as saying.
‘The first step in Helena trying to repair its reputation’
Regardless, Wednesday’s verdict came after Helena’s attorney, Robert L. Soza Jr., told the jury that Uribe’s accusations “are not defensible, not fact-based. They’re fear-based,” according to the Sun-News. Soza cited studies by specialists who said the air and water quality are good, the newspaper reported.
According to the newspaper, Soza told the jury that Uribe “has the right to an opinion … what he doesn’t have a right to do is lie about us, imply we cause health problems and birth defects.”
On the other hand, Uribe’s attorney, Linda Thomas, told the jury that if Helena’s reputation had been harmed, “it has not been because of Mr. Uribe. It has been because of their own actions and the bad press they received for failing to follow environmental laws.”
Soza told the jury, before it issued its ruling, that its verdict “could be the first step in Helena trying to repair its reputation,” according to the Sun-News.
An attorney for Helena wrote in an e-mail that a company spokeswoman would be contacting NMPolitics.net shortly to make a statement.
Update, 9:50 a.m.
Helena said this in a news release:
“This ruling is very important to Helena and our neighbors – it was only without interference from Mr. Uribe’s pattern of lies that we were able to discuss the true nature of our operations,” said Louis Rodrigue, vice president of Helena’s southern business unit. “We had the opportunity to provide factual information to a jury in open court and they agreed that Mr. Uribe has been spreading falsehoods about our operations and injured our reputation. The truth is Helena is not adversely impacting air quality, drinking water quality or the health of the citizens of Mesquite.”
“The jury’s decision in this case is a win for the community in Mesquite and we hope it finally gives them the peace of mind that we are not causing health impacts as falsely stated by Mr. Uribe,” he said. “The falsehoods and rumors spread over the years may have affected our reputation, but not our commitment to the community. We are grateful that we received damages because it holds Mr. Uribe accountable for his irresponsible, reckless and untruthful comments and actions.”
The company added that “a portion” of the damages received will go to a charitable organization that serves southern New Mexico.
For full disclosure, in January 2009 I was asked by Helena and agreed to provide an affidavit in this case stating that I attended the 2007 community meeting in Mesquite after having been invited by Uribe, that the meeting was open to the public, and that I published a Dec. 17, 2007 article about the meeting. I agreed to provide the affidavit only because Helena didn’t ask me to take a side in or state an opinion about the case. The company simply asked me to affirm facts about my news gathering and reporting that were true.