While it's no longer on the air, Chris Hansen's "Dateline" segment "To Catch a Predator" has inspired a legion of vigilantes over the years. These people often create content posing as minors on dating apps and social media websites to target the people who message them. But according to a new analysis from The New York Times, a growing number have taken it to the extreme and begun violently attacking their targets on livestreams.

Forget arrests, 'we count bodies'
Since 2023, there have been over 170 violent vigilante attacks by so-called pedophile hunters, according to the analysis. Footage of the hunters shows them "chasing their targets through retail stores, beating people bloody on public streets and shaving the heads" of their targets. In more severe cases, people have been "hospitalized with serious injuries." 

The Times identified at least 22 individuals and groups who "inflicted violence in the name of pedophile hunting in the last two years," while 40 others made similar content without violence. Most of the violent actions started within the past year. 

The content is "popular in online circles that feature crude and hypermasculine material intended to cater to young men," the Times said. Such creators have been "buoyed by the ability to publish their videos with few restrictions" on platforms that "claim to embrace free speech."

The hunters have sometimes worked with law enforcement. But the groups are often less concerned with working with the criminal justice system. "We don't count arrests and catches," said Joshua Mundy, the co-founder of the popular group Dads Against Predators, in an Instagram post claiming that DAP had caused more suicides among its targets than any other group. "We count bodies."

'People don't get to be Batman'
Despite their growing popularity in some online circles, these groups put innocent bystanders in danger when they attack people and jeopardize criminal cases, law enforcement experts said to the Times. Attacking someone so you can "make money on social media is a crime," said District Attorney Christopher de Barrena-Sarobe of Chester County, Pennsylvania. Real life is "not a comic book — people don't get to be Batman." Police officers are responsible for investigating and enforcing the law because they have the "tools to get the facts right and stand these cases up in a court of law."

A landmark defamation lawsuit against Greenpeace USA could have a "chilling" effect on free speech and the right to protest. And environmental and activist groups are sounding the alarm. 

What was the ruling? 
A jury in North Dakota last week found Greenpeace liable for defamation, trespass, nuisance, civil conspiracy and other acts related to demonstrations dating back to 2016 aimed at disrupting the completion of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The suit, brought by Texas oil and gas giant Energy Transfer, claimed the environmental group funded and encouraged the protests, damaging the company's reputation and costing it as much as $340 million. The jury agreed and ordered Greenpeace to pay $667 million in damages. 

What has the reaction been? 
Greenpeace had warned it would have to declare bankruptcy and close its U.S. operations if found liable. It has now vowed to appeal the court decision, which was met with "shock and dismay" among activist groups, said The Guardian. 

The ruling "sends a dangerous message that fossil fuel giants can weaponize the courts to bankrupt and silence those who challenge the destruction of our planet," Anne Jellema, the executive director of advocacy group 350.org, said to The Times. Marty Garbus, an attorney who represented Nelson Mandela and civil rights campaigner Cesar Chavez, describes it as "one of the most important cases in American history" and "far bigger than the environmental movement." 

Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum said the outcome was a victory for the "rule of law." It may make Greenpeace "think twice now about doing it again," said Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.). 

What does it mean for other protest movements? 
The ruling will undoubtedly "encourage other oil and gas companies to legally pursue environmental protesters at a time when Donald Trump's energy agenda is in ascendancy," said The Guardian. But its impact "stretches far beyond any individual organization" and the green movement itself. The "devastating" verdict "sets an array of deeply damaging precedents on the rights to freedom of speech, association and peaceful protest," said Amnesty International.