Greenpeace activists want burglary charges dropped

Greenpeace activists accused of trespassing at Procter & Gamble's Cincinnati headquarters want their burglary charges dismissed, saying it violates their free speech rights.

"Political speech may not be punished criminally (nor) used as evidence of criminal intent," attorney Lou Sirkin said Friday as the criminal case of the Greenpeace 9 was before Hamilton County Common Pleas Court Judge Robert Winkler.

Sirkin is a nationally noted free-speech attorney who represented Hustler publisher Larry Flynt in Flynt's famous pornography-vs.-free speech trials in Cincinnati.

Prosecutors hadn't seen Sirkin's motion until they walked into court Friday.

The motion attacks the burglary charge against all nine of those who went into P&G's Downtown headquarters March 4, hung banners and zip-lined from the P&G towers to protest the company's use of palm oil, saying its harvesting destroys wild habitats.

The attack on the burglary charge is important because it is the most serious charge against the Greenpeace 9. It carries a maximum prison sentence of eight years. The other charge against them, vandalism, also is a felony. It can result in a maximum prison sentence of 18 months but carries the presumption of probation. If the burglary charge is thrown out, the activists, if convicted, likely would face probation instead of time behind bars.

"The burglary charge violates the First Amendment because it requires (prosecutors) prove that the activists trespassed with the intent to commit a separate crime," Sirkin said. "Since the First Amendment guarantees that engaging in protected political speech cannot be punished as a crime, the burglary charge should be dismissed."

Sirkin's motion noted that others convicted of similar acts -- people parachuting from Downtown buildings, one getting snagged on a building requiring emergency personnel to rescue him -- were convicted of misdemeanors and didn't serve prison time.

"The (Greenpeace 9) activists are being treated much more harshly," Sirkin wrote, "because they were engaged in a political message of environmentalism."

Authorities allege the nine improperly gained access to the buildings and, as they climbed out on the buildings' ledges to hang 50-foot protest banners and secure zip lines, damaged window locks on the building. P&G said that, because of the age and uniqueness of the windows, repairs cost more than $7,000.

The sides spoke to the judge Friday in chambers and nothing official happened in court. The motion likely will be argued July 2 when the case next is in court.