Castanet

Gee, as if this wasn't coming from a mile away....

https://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/laurier-fa ... -1.3983649

Hope he is successful. I might not agree with him on some matters. but being compared to Hitler? It's time activists learn a new word,'accountability'.

If my memory of slander is correct, he'll have to show material damage, and since these people made these comments in a small group, he'll have to show that the damage was done in such since none intended such comments to be broadcast to a wider public.

Now, I could be wrong, but it was explained to me thus by a newspaper publisher. He explained that he was liable if he published comments libelling someone, even if those comments were quotes taken directly from another. Basically, he couldn't intentionally print a letter received without having to take on a rather large risk of liability, to the point that the letter writer would probably be held less liable than the publisher even if the letter was written with the intention of being published.

Now, applying that logic to this case, and assuming that those being accused of defamation had no intention for this to reach a wide audience, it seems to me that those who chose to make the comments widespread would be the more liable in this case.

Add to that the fact that this additional exposure for Peterson almost certainly helped him financially, it seems to me that he has a very weak case indeed. One has to remember that to successfully sue for defamation one has to show likely material loss and perversely these damning comments might well have enhanced Peterson's reputation among a very lucrative source.

Personally, I just think this is another attempt by Peterson to get attention. Maybe I shouldn't write that as he just might sue me for libel

As for Shepherd, I think her case is absurd. She intentionally brought attention to her own actions, ones which are likely career limiting in academia. Nobody I know would want to work with someone who might just be recording any given conversation with the significant possibility of leaking it to a wider audience. Similarly, no college or university will want to have an employee who will go public before earnestly trying to resolve issues in house. Simply put, she is just too big a risk and frankly, I doubt many private businesses would want to have to deal with that either. She was entitled to do what she did, but in doing so there are consequences of her own actions, and they rest firmly on her head. I'm sure most of us have been in situations where we could have screwed over an employer who had wronged us, but decided to try to find a better way.

Jordan Peterson's proliferation depends on the maintenance of his reputation. I have to this day never heard him say anything that suggests he is a modern Hitler, and generally those claims are made with little understanding of who Hitler was and what he was doing.

Opinions on the man aside, it's purely an attack at his character and not the levels to which any educational institution or its representatives should be stooping to.

StraitTalk wrote:Jordan Peterson's proliferation depends on the maintenance of his reputation. I have to this day never heard him say anything that suggests he is a modern Hitler, and generally those claims are made with little understanding of who Hitler was and what he was doing.

Opinions on the man aside, it's purely an attack at his character and not the levels to which any educational institution or its representatives should be stooping to.

Yes, but you don't get to sue someone just for saying mean things about you, you need to demonstrate that what they said had an actual negative impact beyond your feelings. He has to show that his reputation was ultimately damaged, but the counter argument could easily be made that the comments did actually improve his reputation among one of his core demographics: anti-intellectuals.

Hasn’t all of this brought him more attention? I don’t see how he has a case for “damage”

Omnitheo wrote:Hasn’t all of this brought him more attention? I don’t see how he has a case for “damage”

More Attention? perhaps yes but when you're being compared to one of the worst human beings in recent history, Adolf Hitler and also being labelled a part of the "right" which is linked to white supremacist (Neither of them is even remotely true) I'd say that's about as damaging as one can get and not the kind of attention/reference a very prominent intellectual and best selling author would want next to his name.

I hope him and Miss Shepard win.

Emulating Hitler and drumming up right support seems to be the hip thing to do these days.

Nedroj wrote:

Omnitheo wrote:Hasn’t all of this brought him more attention? I don’t see how he has a case for “damage”

More Attention? perhaps yes but when you're being compared to one of the worst human beings in recent history, Adolf Hitler and also being labelled a part of the "right" which is linked to white supremacist (Neither of them is even remotely true) I'd say that's about as damaging as one can get and not the kind of attention/reference a very prominent intellectual and best selling author would want next to his name.

I hope him and Miss Shepard win.

Actually Peterson is linked to the right because many right supporters are supporters of him. You can pretend otherwise, and certainly such are not his bread and butter supporters, but they are definitely a significant portion of his supporters.

Secondly, you don't win a defamation case because your feelings were hurt, or somebody said mean things about you. That's not how they work. You win because someone caused you actual harm and the award is generally compensation for the actual harm done. Likening Peterson to Hitler isn't illegal, and if is doesn't cause him to suffer materially, he has no case.

Do you hope they win because you agree with their attitudes and opinions or because you think they have strong legal claims and can show significant and intentional injury done to them by the Wilfrid Laurier?

It is interesting, because this attempt to shut up the University and show that Peterson is willing to be litigious when he is criticised will have a chilling effect on freedom of speech. Basically those who would criticise him, even fairly, will now think twice and basically this limits public discussion to that of his supporters. It makes his claims to be a strong proponent of freedom of speech sound rather hollow indeed, though it's not like such were really credible to start with.

It started with Lindsay Shepard showing a Jordan Peterson video in class, and by false accusation was subjected to an unwarranted inquisition and then disciplined. Disciplined -meaning losing her position and potentially being unemployable there-after. Lindsay filed a 3.6M lawsuit against the University who admitted they over-reached and made mistakes which caused the episode, and had issued an apology to Ms. Shepard. Ms. Shepard has to endure a demeaning interview with the manager of gendered violence prevention who told her she was breaking the law. The promulgation of Jordan the Hitler material caused Lindsay to be treated as a freaking Hitler criminal by association.

Jordan, encouraged by Lindsay, has a lawsuit for $1.5M - $500,000 for defamation, $500,000 for injurious falsehood, and $500,000 for punitive damages. If people get fired for discussing Jordan's work or just looking at it, then accuse him of being unfit to be a professor, having uninformed and uneducated opinions, being a member of the right, and being transphobic, homophobic, racist and sexist, and comparing him to Hitler for the world to hear, they are serious in their claims backing it up with employment termination.

(These comments) were disseminated widely in both social and conventional media and, in turn, by word of mouth - Peterson claims in his suit.

If the University gets financially hit and made an example of, then good. This may get the ball rolling towards dampning the rampant tribalism in all universities.

Jlabute wrote:It started with Lindsay Shepard showing a Jordan Peterson video in class, and by false accusation was subjected to an unwarranted inquisition and then disciplined. Disciplined -meaning losing her position and potentially being unemployable there-after. Lindsay filed a 3.6M lawsuit against the University who admitted they over-reached and made mistakes which caused the episode, and had issued an apology to Ms. Shepard. Ms. Shepard has to endure a demeaning interview with the manager of gendered violence prevention who told her she was breaking the law. The promulgation of Jordan the Hitler material caused Lindsay to be treated as a freaking Hitler criminal by association.

So, how would someone who was apologised to for receiving unfair disciplining be made unemployable? Hell, even if her disciplining hadn't been reversed, she would still have been free to finish her masters and it certainly wouldn't appear on any letter of reference. I've worked in academia, and we just don't do that to TAs.
Now, she may have a case about harassment, and even for constructive dismissal, but that's about it. Everything else is a result of it being made very public, which was her choice and by her actions. That's on her.

Jordan, encouraged by Lindsay, has a lawsuit for $1.5M - $500,000 for defamation, $500,000 for injurious falsehood, and $500,000 for punitive damages. If people get fired for discussing Jordan's work or just looking at it, then accuse him of being unfit to be a professor, having uninformed and uneducated opinions, being a member of the right, and being transphobic, homophobic, racist and sexist, and comparing him to Hitler for the world to hear, they are serious in their claims backing it up with employment termination.

(These comments) were disseminated widely in both social and conventional media and, in turn, by word of mouth - Peterson claims in his suit.

Nobody got fired for looking at Peterson's work. Nobody got fired for discussing Peterson's work. As a former TA (actually, I had a different title, but so be it), even I knew it would be risky at best to deliver content to my class without prior approval from the lecturer, especially material without context and of a somewhat controversial nature, but she certainly wasn't fired for any of the reasons you listed.

If the University gets financially hit and made an example of, then good. This may get the ball rolling towards dampning the rampant tribalism in all universities.

You don't understand how these things work. This will simply put a chill on discussing Peterson by those very people best suited to discuss him and his opinions: the experts. All criticism will be muted, professors will refuse to discuss him and he and his ideas will simply exist outside the realm of academia; which is where they currently lie. I suspect he'll welcome the lack of criticism and oversight which was starting to become quite noticeable as those experts in the fields on which he likes to pontificate were starting to take note and address his input. In the end, this will just simply chill the discussion and I have absolutely no doubt that such is precisely Petertson's intention.

Verum wrote:You don't understand how these things work. This will simply put a chill on discussing Peterson by those very people best suited to discuss him and his opinions: the experts.

That is utter garbage. Peterson's work will still be discussed, but only as it should be and not in the nonsensical way of the morons at WLU did. That's like saying that the Resolute vs. Greenpeace case will put a chill on public participation like Greenpeace. It just puts a chill on idiots like it should and no first worlder can deny they should be. In that case, Greenpeace has already admitted they lied and effectively engaged in defamation causing material damage to Resolute. They deserve to be hung out to dry and not just for what they have done to Resolute, but that has nothing to do with slapping down public participation. The public just has to make sure they do proper due diligence and have the science, rational, and evidence to back up their claims.

Keith Duhaime wrote:

Verum wrote:You don't understand how these things work. This will simply put a chill on discussing Peterson by those very people best suited to discuss him and his opinions: the experts.

That is utter garbage. Peterson's work will still be discussed, but only as it should be and not in the nonsensical way of the morons at WLU did. That's like saying that the Resolute vs. Greenpeace case will put a chill on public participation like Greenpeace. It just puts a chill on idiots like it should and no first worlder can deny they should be. In that case, Greenpeace has already admitted they lied and effectively engaged in defamation causing material damage to Resolute. They deserve to be hung out to dry and not just for what they have done to Resolute, but that has nothing to do with slapping down public participation. The public just has to make sure they do proper due diligence and have the science, rational, and evidence to back up their claims.

Firstly one relates to an academic setting and the other doesn't. They behave very differently. Academic settings are almost always financial risk adverse. They have to be. Therefore, given a choice to discuss and critique many topics, do you discuss the one where there is a risk that a simple incorrectly worded statement, misinterpreted statement, or emotionally charged statement can risk costing your University millions because one of the main proponents of these ideas is known to be litigious? Or do you stick to financially safe and equally academically important topics? Yes, we all know that professors will be strongly encouraged to stick to the financially safer material. I know, I've seen it in action even in the STEM fields I worked in academia. There was an attitude of being careful what you say about certain companies in front of your classes because they were known to be particularly litigious. Essentially, academia has operated with some of an understanding among academics that this kind of issue is resolved through peer review and other academic means, not the courts. Peterson has got to know this, but has chosen a different route to suit his own needs.

My mistake, Lindsay was not terminated, but her workplace became extremely toxic. This could stop her from pursuing her masters. Staff targeted her, treating her in a reprehensible manner, and offered insincere apologies. I’d be surprised if any institution would employ her after being involved in an apparent controversy and being wrongly associated with the right. Even after the so called apologies, Lindsay was still subject to abuse, and Rambukkana lied by maintaining there were student(s) complaints even though there were none. The university continued to abuse and embarrassing her.
All criticism in Universities is already muted by a rabid left. Lindsay’s/Peterson’s lawsuit will help bring balance to the force... to encourage freedom of speech.


An update from Jordan and why he is also joining with Lindsay’s lawyer.

Jlabute wrote:...
All criticism in Universities is already muted by a rabid left. Lindsay’s/Peterson’s lawsuit will help bring balance to the force... to encourage freedom of speech.
...

You really don't like universities do you? Is there some reason? Did you spend much time there? They certainly aren't dominated by some rabid-left, and many professors I know are actually quite right-wing. I guess that's the advantage of actually knowing professors personally. Science, engineering, math, and medicine all appeal at least equally to all sides of the political spectrum and business studies is generally dominated by the traditional right (at least fiscal right). Theology, especially when taught at most traditional universities, tends to attract the socially conservative, authoritarian right. The image of universities as some rabid leftist institution is just not supported by the evidence of what universities are. That is unless you consider science, engineering, math, etc. to be leftist and I guess some do, since they think of climate change as some leftist conspiracy.

Even if they were leftist institutions, Peterson's lawsuit might bring balance, but only by shutting down discourse, not encouraging speech, but by killing it. Freedom of speech is needed to highlight bad ideas, but this prevents such discussion. This lawsuit, and basically all defamation lawsuits, just reduce the speech and especially so in the realm of academia. But I strongly suspect that many of Peterson's supporters, and those who would defend his decision to take this lawsuit, don't really care about freedom of speech and many clearly despise academia. They want more of the speech they like, less dissent, and clearly that is all they ever really wanted. It is something I have noticed and noted numerous times before. I see it from authoritarians on all sides of the political spectrum. It's sad that they pretend that it's about free speech though. It would be nice if they could be honest with themselves and the rest of the World.

Verum wrote:You don't understand how these things work. This will simply put a chill on discussing Peterson by those very people best suited to discuss him and his opinions: the experts. .

what total elitist crap. Just wow.