The courts have ruled against Jackass Jordan and all you hear from his sheep is "woke" this "woke" that. What a bunch of bullshit. Joran is a con man and the courts slapped the conman.
Jordan Peterson crushed like an insolent fly by panel of judges
- Thread starter mandrill
- Start date
Imagine the nerve of doctors telling other doctors they can't be members of the of the profession just for bleeding people for treatment, using lead for constipation or trepanning for headaches.
Who made them god!
Next thing they'll be banning psychologists just for being hateful incels!
Clearly not since they are asking for social media training.
If you argument is that the professional organization should only be able to comment on things said in patients or in how doctors behave with patients, I think the courts disagree with you and I don't know if it is actually a justifiable position. (Since it is clearly possible to abuse your position as a member of the profession outside of sessions with clients.)
And?
You said he shouldn't be punished for things that don't relate to the profession.
That was, from what I understand, directly part of the decision since that was Peterson's defense.
Clearly, many of the people involved disagree with your analysis.
So what?
You’re saying laws and the courts are god? And that decisions are always right? You must be by your response….
1) Where do you live, I’m truly curious. The courts have no domain over social media, or do those two words escape you.
2) if your best “rebuttal” is. Well we bobbleheads like it that way…..because we say so…
3 ) what argument do you have, that the courts ( outside of hate speech) should control Social media
We all get that he is a professional. Are you? If so, wtf are you doing here expressing opinions?
Last edited:
Well..... by definition court decisions ARE always right, unless they are overturned. And then the appeal court decision is correct. That's because the law is what the judge says it is, not what you want it to be.
The courts have domain over social media. If you incite insurrection or slander someone on social media or threaten to kill someone on social media, the judge will get very mad at you and do bad things to you.
So Jordan got fucked. Except he makes more $$$ being an asshole than being a shrink. So he doesn't give a fuck.
far from what JP has been campaigning for....what the fuck are you talking about?
Let me clarify, regarding slippery slopes.
but first show of hands. Raise it if you are a professional, raise it twice if you belong to a professional organization such as the College.. And what are you doing here. This is SM. So do what I say, not what I do?
/raise
/raise
raise your hand if you’ve ever had to study the differences between Ethics ( typically professional organizations and codes of conduct) and Morals ( laws).
/raise
but first show of hands. Raise it if you are a professional, raise it twice if you belong to a professional organization such as the College.. And what are you doing here. This is SM. So do what I say, not what I do?
/raise
/raise
raise your hand if you’ve ever had to study the differences between Ethics ( typically professional organizations and codes of conduct) and Morals ( laws).
/raise
/points to people in blue being executed and BLM plus oh so much more.
If you're a psychologist making very public statements about how evil women are, how the female orgasm is a myth and whatever else he's ranting about that has bearing on what people think about the field of psychologists and what they may be like in private.
Its not complicated.
Professional colleges can make rules their members must obey as part of their membership.
Courts can rule on whether colleges rules are legal.
Peterson won't accept either and apparently neither will you as that makes them 'god' like.
"I lost the decision and now it's raining on me"
Ontario court rules against Jordan Peterson, upholds social media training order
An Ontario court ruled against psychologist and media personality Jordan Peterson Wednesday, and upheld a regulatory body's order that he take social media training in the wake of complaints about his controversial online posts and statements.Last November, Peterson, a professor emeritus with...
It actually isn’t that complicated, don’t muddy muddy the waters. Are the above distasteful things hate speech. A simple yes or no.
Yes they do, as you actually admit. Any form of expression is speech, ergo social media is expression, ergo they have the same authority over social media as they do over any other form of expression. Hate speech, threats, defamation, etc. They have authority over it all. In this case it was a question of his license, which comes with certain requirements regarding one's conduct, can be justly suspended or revoked for that speech.
You weren't asking me, but in case you want to, I'm in Ontario. In the GTA.
You just said they didn't have authority of it, now you're already backpedalling 2 bullet points later admitting they do have some authority over it. Not as great start.
In any case, they aren't controlling it. They ruled on whether Jordan Peterson's comments on social media could be protected as free speech and be separated from his professional role. They determined it cannot. They ruled that he is known on social media as a Psychologist, that he uses the fact that he's a licensed, published psychologist to give his arguments credence, and that therefore his comments on social media could not be considered to be outside his profession and unaffiliated with his professional credentials.
At no point did Jordan Peterson ask the court to rule on the content of his posts. At no point did the court do so. He brought two arguments:
1. His comments were personal and not professional, and therefore not subject to the Code of Conduct and are protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
2. The College did not adequately consider his Freedom of Expression and other Charter rights in their review.
The Court went out of their way to point out that they aren't there to control Social Media or even determine the validity of Peterson's posts. "A reviewing court need not agree with the outcome, as that would impose a standard of correctness." The thing you're claiming the Court is doing is a very thing the pointed out they can't do, and they say they can't do it for the same reason you would object with it. You're on the same page with the Court already, in face.
They even cited the rationality from the precedence that said:
"The role of courts in these circumstances is to review, and they are, at least as a general rule, to refrain from deciding the issue themselves. Accordingly, a court applying the reasonableness standard does not ask what decision it would have made in place of that of the administrative decision maker, attempt to ascertain the “range” of possible conclusions that would have been open to the decision maker, conduct a de novo analysis or seek to determine the ‘correct’ solution to the problem."
I might suggest you read the entire 18-page decision before you rush to assumptions on what the Court is doing and ruling on. You can find it here:
Regarding his first argument...
The Court looked at whether Peterson's comments on social media fall within the purview of the Code of Conduct and the College to rule on or if, as Jordan Peterson argued on Court, that they were "off-duty" comments.
The Court ruled in favour of the college for the reasons I stated above: Peterson identifies himself as a licensed clinical psychologist on Twitter and therefore his comments can't be separated from his professional persona. See points 47-49 for the exact wording, but it's very compelling and why I say the Court's ruling seems reasonable. I'd be curious to hear where you disagree with any of those 3 points specifically, and if not, what contrasting reasons you think invalidate them.
The Court further pointed to Pitter and Alviano's cases against the Ontario College of Nurses which were nearly identical on that they made comments on social media regarding masking and vaccines around COVID 19 where they identified as nurses. Similar arguments were presented and the courts upheld that College's ruling as well.
Regarding his second argument...
When examining whether the College adequately considered his rights, a big factor is that he was shown leniency in a similar review by the college in 2020 but issued with a warning which he neither disagreed it or heeded. Given that the College had just conducted a review where it had shown leniency in deference to his Charter Freedoms, Peterson's claims that the College didn't consider them fully in their new review fell flat to the Court. Clearly they had examine them fully just the prior year, and this new review had taken the old one, including the arguments regarding Charter Rights, under consideration to reach this decision.
Points 75 and 76 are the summary of the Courts findings, and they indeed seem reasonable to be when considering all the arguments and rationality in the rest of the finding.
I'm neither a lawyer nor a judge, but looking at the entirety of the ruling objectively, it seems reasonable and I'm curious to know what parts of the ruling, ideally citing line numbers, people think is unreasonable.
Now we’re getting somewhere. The courts do not have domain over SM.
Ethics
Philosophical stuff here ( yes I’ve studied). Thank me I won’t bore you with what great philosophers have said on morals and ethics.
“Should” organization have domain over SM?
Me, I’m devil details. Some situations I might say yes, others no..
That's an insane interpretation of what I said.
Where do you live where courts have no domain over public statements, social media included?
Certainly not Canada or the United States.
I think pointing out that claiming he was punished for behavior they had no right to jurisdiction over is contradicted by the fact that a court ruled this was something they have jurisdiction over is a perfectly fine rebuttal.
If you want to argue "they SHOULDN'T have jurisdiction" over that, that's a different argument and would obviously require a different rebuttal.
The courts in this case weren't arguing they had control of social media.
They were arguing that the rules of professional conduct the society (College) has jurisdiction over concerning who has membership in the society cover behavior on social media.
Since that is - ultimately - a question of freedom of association and a private organization enjoys broad discretion over what it has control over in deciding membership, that isn't a surprising conclusion, nor is it one I think particularly controversial.
Mind you, I wasn't following the trial closely (I don't think it was public anyway) so exactly what was at stake isn't clear to me. I think Peterson's argument may have hinged on the College not having the right to include social media in these judgments, but it may also have simply been that he didn't contest that right, just that the things he said didn't violate the standards. In which case he lost that argument as well.
I don't know.
(Peterson has claimed many things about the case, but as a member of the dispute, he isn't particularly trustworthy on the subject.)
Now, if you want an actual discussion of "Should courts control Social media" then that is somewhat different from the case in front of us.
My view is that there are laws that apply to conduct on social media and courts should be able to enforce those.
I wouldn't view that as "controlling social media".
You may disagree, but since you already said you are ok with them having laws about hate speech, presumably we aren't very far apart on this at all.
Are the opinions I am expressing here (and the behavior I am displaying in doing so) at odds with my membership in the professional society I am a member of?
You aren't trying to argue that Peterson was getting his license revoked for "using social media" in the abstract, are you?
read my latest reply and their code.
Then ask yourself, with respect to SM do you want world where we all mute bobbleheads?
Once again, are you saying professional societies have a clause in their membership saying "you are not allowed to post on social media"?
Are you saying that Peterson's license revoking is based on "posting on social media" and not specifically what he was posting or how it was related to his status as a member of the professional society?
I was just having a discussion yesterday about that distinction (Ethics v. Morals) and the different ways the two are defined.
/like
Just think on it.
I don’t care if we agree/disagree we are allowed our opinions. That is in the charter.. One of great things about freedom.
I do have issues, when anyone, especially things play god. Near as I can tell, from their own code ( unless it’s the amendment dated July 2023)….
and with respect to “SM”
Last edited:
You didn't really understand my post, did you Richie?
Try again tomorrow morning and maybe you'll make a little more progress. Keep trying though.
