You can keep calling it whatever you like, but if the agreement was that he wasn't going to sue as long as they actually changed their behavior, despite having a legitimate tort against them, then he has every right to change his mind and decide to sue after all, when their pledged behavioral change doesn't come about.
Which means that it isn't "abusing the law" as you claim.
I think that you should watch his YouTube video on the issue.
He has no standing to sue over what they've continued to do to Lindsay, but he can sue for what they said about him.
Had they actually changed their behavior towards Lindsay, I am certain he wouldn't be filing suit. I suspect that all he's interested in for a settlement, is genuine policy change.
Peterson has put up a youtube video where he reads the entirety of Lindsay Shepard's lawsuit against Wilfrid Laurier.
It is clear to me, that his lawsuit is not about what happened to Lindsay with the original incident, but what *continued to happen long after the University apologized.*
Video games are a protected form of expression and speech under the First Amendment. The Judge can no more tell him that his First Amendment rights toward video games are curtailed, than he could order him not to read comic books, or watch Stranger Things.
Surely you see the irony of you - a literal Anonymous Coward by label, complaining about someone who registered an actual account being an Anonymous Coward?
It doesn't invalidate the entire argument. It weakens it, and makes it easy enough to see that the person making the argument isn't worth the time or effort to have a reasonable conversation with in the first place, because they are unwilling or incapable of behaving like an adult.
I'm not here to waste my time trading insults on a playground. If you want to have a civil discussion, do so. If not, don't expect anyone to take you seriously or care what you have to say.
Your representation of the techdirt community as a first contact is less than impressive. You cannot behave yourself and choose to insult people because your arguments are weak and ineffective.
And before you call anyone else names, know that it is in fact illegal in my state and many others to fire someone for lawful behavior, including political or ideological activism.
I suggest you read your own arguments and cease the ad hominem logical fallacies. It reflects rather poorly on you, and makes your arguments easy to dismiss.
"One is that the person's views are obviously so strongly and honestly held that it will inevitably cause some problems with co-workers and clients."
Future tense.
"You don't keep the scum of the earth around you where they can cause damage to everyone else just because it's somehow mean to treat them as the racist scum they are."
Again, future conditional tense.
"Good thing I state that it's for actions already taken then, isn't it?"
Clearly you cannot decide whether to punish them for potential future problems, or past actions.
Again, read your own words. Attending a racist rally in this country is within the law. People are not generally fired for lawful behavior, so once again you're referring to thought-crimes and presumed problems in the future, despite your insults and claims to the contrary.
"True, but everybody else in that class deserves education as well. If you being a knuckle-dragging Nazi jeopardises that for everybody else, you're out, sorry."
Before you were in favor of kicking them out because they were racist, then it's because they attended a rally, now you claim "if" they jeopardize learning they should be kicked out.
So which is it? Kick them out for exercising their First Amendment rights? or kick them out only if they cause issues, or kick them out because you believe they will possibly cause issues?
And for the third time: How does this solve anything? You keep avoiding that question, as though you have no answer to it and hope it will just go away.
If you can't respond without insults, don't bother. I expected a better level of discourse from the users of this site than the rest of the internet, and won't waste any more of my time on someone who blatantly refuses to express themselves politely because they can hide behind a computer screen.
I don't appreciate being called a moron. If you can't make an argument without directly insulting me, please move along.
You support firing someone, or kicking them out of college, because you don't like their viewpoints. How many jobs should they be kicked out of? All of them, or just the one they have now? How are you helping bring about change? Since you skipped over the conclusion of my original post:
How are you solving anything?
What viewpoints of yours might be next on the list of deserving firing, or homelessness because of? You don't think you have any, but that's not for you to decide based on your support of this behavior. Someone completely unrelated to the employer-employee relationship is deciding to try and get someone else fired. So you cannot possibly be sure that you aren't on that list someday.
You're also in favor of punishing people for potential future behavior based on ideology. How about we punish people for what they actually do, rather than what you think they might do someday in the future? Personally, I'm very much in favor of allowing people to work diligently and reliably at whatever job they have if they follow company policy and behave appropriately while they represent that business. I am not in favor of Minority Report future-crime thought-police.
Finally, suggesting that someone doesn't deserve an education if they're racist is beyond the absurd. Education is precisely what combats racism and ignorance.
I believe very strongly in the Constitution - particularly the right to hold your own opinions and beliefs. Unfortunately, that extends to racism and other generally stupid points of view.
I came to Techdirt because I appreciated your coverage of First Amendment views. I even turned off my adblocker (literally the only site on the entire Internet for which I have done that) in order to support your fight against the email "inventor" lawsuit.
After the unacceptable behavior in Charlottesville, I come here and see this post, encouraging vigilantism for someone's beliefs - whether they broke the law or otherwise.
Color me disappointed.
To begin with, what will be the next unacceptable viewpoint which we crowdsource SJW in an effort to get people fired from their jobs or kicked out of Universities? Will potentially losing their job change their bigoted point of view? Doubtful.
Universities are commonly known as places where your world-view is challenged by knowledge and situations in which you may never have found yourself. What if attending College would have exposed a Neo-Nazi to facts and realities in which they realized how ugly and wrong their hatred was? Instead, they are wrongfully kicked out of school, and that opportunity to possibly change them into a better person is lost.
Racism and other unpopular viewpoints should not be punished as a belief. Punish actions which violate the law - not thought. At least one of them is suspected of murder - punish that. Several of them are on video committing assault and battery - punish that. Punish each and every one of them that can be found by a jury to have broken the law.
This effort makes no distinction between Constitutionally-protected opinions, and illegal actions. As much as people may hate to admit it, it is likely that there are Neo-Nazis who attend this rally who did not actually break any laws. People who marched and expressed their hatred, but did not assault anyone. Peaceful! expression of your beliefs is supposed to be protected behavior in this country. Again - those who were not peaceful, those who broke the law - punish them.
SJW vigilantism isn't a solution. It isn't even part of a solution, because it solves nothing. It won't change their views (most likely). It doesn't expose them to the reality that the rest of us live in. All it will do is confirm their beliefs, because a Jew got them fired, or a liberal snowflake got them fired, or whomever they wish to assign blame to.
Because they most certainly will not assign blame to themselves until their core belief system has been changed, and this campaign doesn't address that at all.
On the post: Supposed 'Free Speech' Warrior Jordan Peterson Sues University Because Silly Professor Said Some Mean Things About Him
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wilfrid Laurier
Which means that it isn't "abusing the law" as you claim.
On the post: Supposed 'Free Speech' Warrior Jordan Peterson Sues University Because Silly Professor Said Some Mean Things About Him
Re: Re: Re: Re: Wilfrid Laurier
He has no standing to sue over what they've continued to do to Lindsay, but he can sue for what they said about him.
Had they actually changed their behavior towards Lindsay, I am certain he wouldn't be filing suit. I suspect that all he's interested in for a settlement, is genuine policy change.
On the post: Supposed 'Free Speech' Warrior Jordan Peterson Sues University Because Silly Professor Said Some Mean Things About Him
Re: Re: Wilfrid Laurier
It is clear to me, that his lawsuit is not about what happened to Lindsay with the original incident, but what *continued to happen long after the University apologized.*
On the post: Macy's, The Department Store Chain, Forces A Tiny Hair Salon In Scotland To Change Its Name
"Go fuck yourself."
On the post: Teen Who Made A Dumb School Shooting Joke On Snapchat Ordered By Judge To Not Play Violent Video Games
Video games are a protected form of expression and speech under the First Amendment. The Judge can no more tell him that his First Amendment rights toward video games are curtailed, than he could order him not to read comic books, or watch Stranger Things.
On the post: One Twitter Account's Mission To Make White Supremacists Very, Very Famous
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It doesn't invalidate the entire argument. It weakens it, and makes it easy enough to see that the person making the argument isn't worth the time or effort to have a reasonable conversation with in the first place, because they are unwilling or incapable of behaving like an adult.
I'm not here to waste my time trading insults on a playground. If you want to have a civil discussion, do so. If not, don't expect anyone to take you seriously or care what you have to say.
On the post: One Twitter Account's Mission To Make White Supremacists Very, Very Famous
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I won't waste my time with someone who behaves in that manner, regardless of how sensitive you believe I am on the subject.
If you cannot or will not present an argument without resorting to insults, then your argument isn't worth listening to.
Also, my position on the matter has neither been debunked, nor has my most obvious (repeated three times) question even been addressed.
So you can be ignored as well. If you care for people to communicate with you, then you ought to learn to do so without insults.
Best of luck.
On the post: One Twitter Account's Mission To Make White Supremacists Very, Very Famous
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And before you call anyone else names, know that it is in fact illegal in my state and many others to fire someone for lawful behavior, including political or ideological activism.
A moron wouldn't know that.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/08/16/can-private-employers-fire-emplo yees-for-going-to-a-white-supremacist-rally/?utm_term=.a0d047de9e55
Looks like you're wrong - again. And you still never answered my question. I wonder why not...
Insults are insults, no matter how mild you feel your name-calling is. Learn to comport yourself better.
Ignored.
On the post: One Twitter Account's Mission To Make White Supremacists Very, Very Famous
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I suggest you read your own arguments and cease the ad hominem logical fallacies. It reflects rather poorly on you, and makes your arguments easy to dismiss.
"One is that the person's views are obviously so strongly and honestly held that it will inevitably cause some problems with co-workers and clients."
Future tense.
"You don't keep the scum of the earth around you where they can cause damage to everyone else just because it's somehow mean to treat them as the racist scum they are."
Again, future conditional tense.
"Good thing I state that it's for actions already taken then, isn't it?"
Clearly you cannot decide whether to punish them for potential future problems, or past actions.
Again, read your own words. Attending a racist rally in this country is within the law. People are not generally fired for lawful behavior, so once again you're referring to thought-crimes and presumed problems in the future, despite your insults and claims to the contrary.
"True, but everybody else in that class deserves education as well. If you being a knuckle-dragging Nazi jeopardises that for everybody else, you're out, sorry."
Before you were in favor of kicking them out because they were racist, then it's because they attended a rally, now you claim "if" they jeopardize learning they should be kicked out.
So which is it? Kick them out for exercising their First Amendment rights? or kick them out only if they cause issues, or kick them out because you believe they will possibly cause issues?
And for the third time: How does this solve anything? You keep avoiding that question, as though you have no answer to it and hope it will just go away.
If you can't respond without insults, don't bother. I expected a better level of discourse from the users of this site than the rest of the internet, and won't waste any more of my time on someone who blatantly refuses to express themselves politely because they can hide behind a computer screen.
On the post: One Twitter Account's Mission To Make White Supremacists Very, Very Famous
Re: Re:
You support firing someone, or kicking them out of college, because you don't like their viewpoints. How many jobs should they be kicked out of? All of them, or just the one they have now? How are you helping bring about change? Since you skipped over the conclusion of my original post:
How are you solving anything?
What viewpoints of yours might be next on the list of deserving firing, or homelessness because of? You don't think you have any, but that's not for you to decide based on your support of this behavior. Someone completely unrelated to the employer-employee relationship is deciding to try and get someone else fired. So you cannot possibly be sure that you aren't on that list someday.
You're also in favor of punishing people for potential future behavior based on ideology. How about we punish people for what they actually do, rather than what you think they might do someday in the future? Personally, I'm very much in favor of allowing people to work diligently and reliably at whatever job they have if they follow company policy and behave appropriately while they represent that business. I am not in favor of Minority Report future-crime thought-police.
Finally, suggesting that someone doesn't deserve an education if they're racist is beyond the absurd. Education is precisely what combats racism and ignorance.
On the post: One Twitter Account's Mission To Make White Supremacists Very, Very Famous
I came to Techdirt because I appreciated your coverage of First Amendment views. I even turned off my adblocker (literally the only site on the entire Internet for which I have done that) in order to support your fight against the email "inventor" lawsuit.
After the unacceptable behavior in Charlottesville, I come here and see this post, encouraging vigilantism for someone's beliefs - whether they broke the law or otherwise.
Color me disappointed.
To begin with, what will be the next unacceptable viewpoint which we crowdsource SJW in an effort to get people fired from their jobs or kicked out of Universities? Will potentially losing their job change their bigoted point of view? Doubtful.
Universities are commonly known as places where your world-view is challenged by knowledge and situations in which you may never have found yourself. What if attending College would have exposed a Neo-Nazi to facts and realities in which they realized how ugly and wrong their hatred was? Instead, they are wrongfully kicked out of school, and that opportunity to possibly change them into a better person is lost.
Racism and other unpopular viewpoints should not be punished as a belief. Punish actions which violate the law - not thought. At least one of them is suspected of murder - punish that. Several of them are on video committing assault and battery - punish that. Punish each and every one of them that can be found by a jury to have broken the law.
This effort makes no distinction between Constitutionally-protected opinions, and illegal actions. As much as people may hate to admit it, it is likely that there are Neo-Nazis who attend this rally who did not actually break any laws. People who marched and expressed their hatred, but did not assault anyone. Peaceful! expression of your beliefs is supposed to be protected behavior in this country. Again - those who were not peaceful, those who broke the law - punish them.
SJW vigilantism isn't a solution. It isn't even part of a solution, because it solves nothing. It won't change their views (most likely). It doesn't expose them to the reality that the rest of us live in. All it will do is confirm their beliefs, because a Jew got them fired, or a liberal snowflake got them fired, or whomever they wish to assign blame to.
Because they most certainly will not assign blame to themselves until their core belief system has been changed, and this campaign doesn't address that at all.
Next >>