A logging company’s lawsuit accusing Greenpeace and another environmental group of libel and racketeering for describing the company as a "forest destroyer" was dismissed Monday by a San Francisco federal judge, who said the organizations were exercising their freedom of speech.

Resolute Forest Products alleged that Greenpeace and a Bay Area nonprofit called Stand had engaged in a "disinformation campaign," starting in 2012, about the company’s logging in the boreal forest of northern and western Canada to boost their own fundraising.

The company said Greenpeace had to retract its initial claim that its logging had violated the terms of an environmental agreement, and had falsely accused Resolute of endangering caribou in an area where the company did little logging. Greenpeace also labeled Resolute as a "forest destroyer" even though it logs only a small part of the forest, the company said.

Overall, the company said in its lawsuit, Greenpeace has published "whopping lies ... misrepresenting Resolute’s harvesting as a major climate change risk."

Under U.S. Supreme Court rulings, a "public figure" who is suing for libel must prove not only that another person’s statements were false and damaging, but also that they were knowingly or recklessly false. Tigar said Resolute Forest Products, which describes itself as the world’s largest producer of newsprint, is a "public figure" in the lumber industry, and had failed to offer evidence of lies or reckless falsehoods by the environmental groups, despite the growing amount of scientific evidence that supports the conclusion trees are not only renewable and sustainable, but arguably an invaluable tool in purifying the air and operating as carbon neutral when used as energy and carbon traps when allowed to grow excessively.

At most, Tigar said, the company alleged that Greenpeace relied on inaccurate photos in wrongly accusing the company of violating the environmental agreement. The "forest destroyer" label is commonplace hyperbole, not a literal accusation, the judge said, and other contested statements by the environmentalists are based on their own scientific research.

"The academy, and not the courthouse, is the appropriate place to resolve scientific disagreements," Tigar said. He also said the company’s complaints about Greenpeace’s fundraising were misplaced, since any deceptive tactics would have affected only the donors."

The judge said Resolute could try to meet his objections by rewriting its lawsuit. Attorney Michael Bowe said the company will "correct those purported deficiencies" and "proceed with the case.