This Was An Ignorant Response To Jordan Peterson (Lawsuit Update)
Wilfred Laurier responded to Jordan Peterson and it was particularly ignorant. They claimed that Peterson should be suing Lindsey Shepherd because she published the recording of the incident. However this is wrong, Shepherd did not publish the recording, it was the National Post and Global news. The statement was Laurier's defense against defamation but they made a huge error in being factually incorrect.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Wolford Laurier has responded to the defamation lawsuit filed by Dr. Jordan Peterson in a rather unique way.
They are claiming that Jordan Peterson should be suing Lindsay Shepard, the Wolford Laurier student, because she's the one who secretly recorded the meeting in the first place and published it.
The only problem...
They're wrong.
Lindsay Shepard didn't publish the recording.
Some news outlets did.
If you're not familiar with the story, Lindsay Shepard is a student at Wilfrid Laurier and she showed a classroom a video debate of Jordan Peterson and a few other professors talking about the use of gender pronouns.
Apparently, the school claimed that someone was complaining about this and reprimanded Shepard.
In the meeting, they claimed that Peterson was like Hitler.
They said he was sexist, misogynist.
The only problem is that we learned eventually no one actually complained.
Now, Lindsay Shepard had the foresight to record the meeting, but she didn't publish it.
So it's interesting now to see that they've responded in this way.
Lindsay Shepard also filed a lawsuit against the university for the distress she suffered because of the statements they've made and the ensuing debacle.
So, I've got some interesting ideas about this, and although the university is wrong, they do bring up an interesting point that Lindsey Shepard is the one who recorded this.
So let's take a look at whose fault this really is, and I'm just gonna right off the bat say it.
Obviously, it's not Lindsey Shepard's.
It's not Jordan Peterson's.
But let's talk about it, and we'll start by reading the news story from the National Post.
Laurier's statement of defense says Jordan Peterson should really be suing Lindsey Shepard.
The impugned words were uploaded to YouTube by Shepard and she is therefore responsible for the damages, if any, that flowed from the impugned words being broadcast.
In a statement of defense filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Wilfrid Laurier University says that controversial professor and author Jordan Peterson is a hypocrite and he's suing the wrong people.
Peterson is suing the university in Waterloo, Ontario for $1.5 million in damages for allegedly defamatory statements made when teaching assistant Lindsay Shepard was disciplined for showing her class a video of him discussing gender identity and gender neutral pronouns on TV Ontario.
But Laurier says that if the University of Toronto psychology professor should be suing anybody, he should really be suing Shepard.
In the disciplinary hearing, which Shepard secretly recorded and eventually published to YouTube, assistant professor Nathan Ranbucana, associate professor Herbert Pimlott, and Laurier Diversity and Equity Office staffer, Adria Joel, likened Peterson's comments to Adolf Hitler, among other things.
But Laurier says their comments are not defamatory for several reasons, including the fact that they were made in the context of a private meeting.
They played no role whatsoever in uploading the recording of the impugned words to YouTube, and are not responsible in any way for any repercussions flowing therefrom, the university says in its statement of defense.
Rather, these defendants state that the impugned words were uploaded to YouTube by Shepard, and that she is therefore responsible for the damages, if any, that flowed from the impugned words being broadcast on YouTube.
The only issue here is that Lindsay Shepard did not publish the audio.
She did record it, but she didn't publish it.
She tweeted, Laurier's defense is claiming I am responsible for the
damages of Jordan Peterson's $1.5 million lawsuit because the impugned words were uploaded to YouTube by Shepard.
No, I have never uploaded the recording to YouTube. Your whole premise is wrong.
Global News first released an excerpt version and actually- never asked me if that was okay. Then National Post
released a full version on SoundCloud and copies were uploaded after by various
accounts to YouTube. The National Post tweeted out the story with an excerpt from
the defense statement and Lindsey Shepard responded, no I have never uploaded the
recording to YouTube.
You guys, National Post, Tristan Hopper, were actually the first to upload the
whole recording to SoundCloud and Tristan Hopper, who is in fact an Edmonton-based
reporter for the National Post, said this is indeed correct.
So I do want to point out it would seem the National Post is wrong in this
statement right here where it says Shepard secretly recorded and eventually published
to YouTube because apparently the reporter who was the first person to upload
to the National Post said it was correct.
Lindsay Shepard claimed she's never uploaded to YouTube, and the National Post confirmed it, so there's a factual inaccuracy in their story.
And more importantly, the defense statement from Wilford Laurier is factually incorrect.
The story continues.
Peterson argues in his statement of claim that the comments made in that disciplinary meeting were designed to attack his character and harm his reputation, and the private nature of the conversation isn't relevant.
These comments were disseminated widely in both social and conventional media, and in turn by word of mouth, Peter says, in his suit.
Although the individual defendants did not personally disseminate and broadcast it, they could have reasonably anticipated that, given the nature of their conduct and the position taken by Shepard at the meeting, that she would inform others of what had occurred.
The university says, in its defense, that Shepard reportedly consulted with Peterson before making the recording public.
I reached out to Lindsay Shepard to see if that assertion is true, because it's actually pretty interesting.
Did she consult with Jordan Peterson before she leaked the secret audio?
I asked.
The story says that according to Laurier you consulted Peterson before releasing the audio.
Is there any truth that claim?
To which she responded.
Hi Tim.
No consultation.
I sent him an email letting him know I had a recording of a disciplinary meeting regarding me playing a video of him and I was sending it to media.
Did not ask him for advice and he did not hear the recording before media got it.
I just did it out of courtesy.
I responded.
Did he respond with any advice, or did you take any actions based on anything he may have said to you after you informed him of the recording?
And she said, yes.
He said, check what I'm doing is legal.
And there's an interesting argument to be made about Lindsey Shepard being the one who recorded the meeting and publishing it, but I think this argument is actually wrong.
Now, I can't speak for Canadian law, but that probably wouldn't fly in the U.S.
because defamation doesn't need to be public.
Think about it this way.
You're trying to get a job, and you're going up against your rival, and you're in a job interview.
The employer says, why should I hire you over this person?
So you say, don't hire that person, he's a Nazi.
That's defamation.
You will still be liable for the damages for slandering someone even though it's a private setting.
If that person finds out they lost that job and you have damaged them because you said fake things about them in an effort to damage them, you're responsible.
Now, Jordan Peterson's a public figure, and it's possible the staff members at Wilfrid Laurier really did believe this stuff.
I mean, you gotta admit, there's a lot of fake news about Jordan Peterson, accusing him of being alt-right, of promoting incel ideology and things of that nature.
And it's possible these staff members really believed this to be true and didn't want to defame or damage Jordan Peterson, just thought they were doing the right thing and telling the truth.
So it'll be interesting how this actually plays out.
And again, I don't know how it's going to work in Canadian law, and even in the U.S., it varies by jurisdiction.
But they did say more than just this defense.
They're actually arguing that Jordan Peterson should be happy this is happening.
The university says that Peterson has no grounds to sue for damage to his reputation because this whole situation has only boosted his profile.
The university also alleges that Peterson is a hypocrite.
There is an inescapable irony in the fact that Peterson, who has come to prominence through vehement advocacy of free speech principles, is bringing a claim for the stated purpose of causing academics and administrators to be more circumspect in their words, the Statement of Defense says.
Shepard has filed a lawsuit against Laurier, alleging that the university made her unemployable in academia as a consequence of the whole affair.
In a statement on the university website, Laurier highlighted key points of the statement of defense against Peterson and indicated that it will also be fighting the Shepard lawsuit.
The university will file a separate statement of defense in relation to a lawsuit initiated by Lindsey Shepard.
This process has been delayed by procedural issues that are currently being addressed, the university said.
Now in a previous video, I did say that I think there is fair criticism of Lindsey Shepard.
She is suing because she's become unemployable, but she is the one who recorded the meeting and published it.
In reality, if she just ignored the meeting as kind of a one-off thing that didn't matter too much, none of this would be happening.
But it's also fair to say that what they did to her was unjust and she had every right to defend herself.
And everything that happened was from a false complaint, a false meeting where they reprimanded Lindsay Shepard for no reason.
So you can't really fault someone for defending themselves over a phony meeting and a phony complaint.
So the argument is interesting, and I'd be curious to see what a judge would say.
But now let's talk about the idea that Jordan Peterson is a free speech hypocrite, because he's not.
Defamation, slander, and libel are not free speech.
Now, it becomes interesting when you enter a court of law, and you're arguing over whether or not someone's a public figure, and you have a right to criticize a public figure, even if you're wrong.
People do have a right to make factually incorrect statements.
It's not defamation and slander or libel if you really think something is true.
There has to be some kind of malintent and has to be real damages.
But the idea that just because you believe in free speech you can't fight against lies is total BS.
That's absolutely not true.
In no circumstance is it okay to smear and lie about someone.
And this is one of the big challenges we face among principled versus unprincipled.
There are media organizations that have no problem lying and hiding behind free speech in the First Amendment so that they can get away with attacking people's character when they know full well these things aren't true.
Jordan Peterson's not like Hitler.
He's a rather individualist libertarian, and anybody who's done any research would know that these statements are factually incorrect.
Anybody who's actually paid any attention or did any research would know that Jordan Peterson criticizes the alt-right and the regressive left.
The idea that he is somehow misogynist or sexist is factually incorrect, but You're entitled to your opinion, and some people have different opinions than other people.
It is my opinion, based on everything I know about Peterson, what he's stated and said in interviews, that I don't believe it's true that he's a racist misogynist or somehow associated with the alt-right.
I've talked with many lawyers about defamation and about being accused of having certain beliefs, and often it's an opinion.
What does racist mean?
Well, a lot of people have a different idea of what racist means.
What does alt-right mean?
A lot of people have a different idea of what alt-right means.
Sure, there's a common understanding of what alt-right means.
If you look it up, it typically relates to white nationalism, and the Associated Press has guidelines stating that alt-right means white nationalist.
But there are a lot of journalists that will use it and then later claim, oh, but you know, it kind of just means like a mischievous conservative personality.
It doesn't really mean anything.
And they can get away with it.
Let's say they claimed Jordan Peterson did a backflip yesterday.
That is a statement of fact.
And if he didn't, and they were trying to hurt his image, then yeah, he might have a case.
But if they said he did a cool maneuver, well, that's just their opinion because they could be referring to anything, and we don't really know what they're talking about.
And this is the struggle of the media in today's day and age.
So many activists are working in media.
So many journalists are actually activists just pretending to be journalists, and they will lie about you.
They know they're lying, and when you ask for a correction, they're under no obligation to actually correct their articles.
And correct the record, we used to rely on ethics at media companies.
We used to rely on general good principles from people.
But now it's all about gaining power.
The left and the right paradigm, it's all about tribalism.
No one cares whether or not something's correct, they care about whether or not you're going to defend or attack someone who may or may not be conservative.
Most of the criticism I get from my channel is that I focus too much on the left.
But I'm not talking about a core set of beliefs.
I'm not insulting liberals for being liberal.
I'm going after people who are unprincipled, and then I get accused of being conservative simply for doing that.
No, if you oppose free expression and free speech, then you are a problem that I will probably talk about.
And most of the stuff I do talk about tends to be apolitical.
But it doesn't matter.
Because people are just upset that I'm not targeting the right people.
