A Fishy First Amendment Case: Lobster Libel or Free Speech?

The federal appeals court’s recent skepticism towards a defamation lawsuit brought by New England lobster fishermen against the Monterey Bay Aquarium has sent shockwaves through the fishing industry. On its surface, this seems like a straightforward case of business interests clashing with environmental advocacy – but scratch beneath the surface and you’ll find complex free speech concerns that raise fundamental questions about libel law.

The issue at hand is the Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch program, which in 2022 placed American and Canadian lobster on its “red list” due to concerns over entanglement with rare whales. The lobster industry has long pushed back against this designation, claiming it inaccurately portrays them as a threat to these magnificent creatures.

Judge Seth Aframe’s pointed remark during oral arguments highlights the real crux of the matter: if the lobster industry is able to successfully sue the Monterey Bay Aquarium for allegedly defaming their business, what would be the implications for environmental advocacy in general? Would conservation groups and scientists suddenly find themselves muzzled by fear of libel lawsuits when advocating for species like the North Atlantic right whale?

The Seafood Watch program is one of the most influential sustainability reports on seafood, used by major retailers and restaurants to inform their purchasing decisions. Monterey Bay Aquarium didn’t single out any specific lobster fishermen in its report but listed American and Canadian lobster as a whole, which seems like an attempt to avoid libel liability. Amy Saharia, an attorney for the aquarium, noted during oral arguments that “Seafood Watch didn’t disclose any of the countervailing evidence… In fact, they hid that evidence.”

This raises important questions about the role of environmental advocacy in public discourse. Should conservation groups be neutral arbiters of scientific facts or take a more forceful stance on issues like entanglement and overfishing? And what would happen if such advocacy was subject to libel lawsuits from industries that feel their interests are being unfairly maligned?

Government agencies have acknowledged the critical threat posed by entanglement in fishing gear to species like the North Atlantic right whale. The lobster industry may claim other fisheries, like the Canadian snow crab fishery, pose a greater threat – but this only serves to muddy the waters further.

The court’s decision on whether to allow the lawsuit to proceed will have far-reaching implications for free speech and environmental advocacy in the United States. Will the judges take a strict view of libel law or recognize that some degree of latitude is necessary for advocates to speak truth to power? As Maine fishermen continue to haul in millions of pounds of lobster each year – worth over $460 million at the docks – the fate of this lawsuit holds important lessons for the future of our oceans and our environment.