>A good test for free speech is what if your opponent got it. Let's say some hyper conservative Peterson supporters took control of the college of Psychologists and started revolking the license of anyone who made claims opposing Mr Petersons world view, would you still think that's okay and consistent with free speech?

In this particular case, I don't think that what he is being asked to do is unreasonable, nor an assault on Free Speech. I highly recommend reading the (15 page) court ruling), which lays out the background and the Courts' reasoning. [1]

To be clear, he is NOT losing his license. He has to take coaching program on professionalism in his public statements when he identifies as a Psychologist. He was repeatedly warned to be more professional in his public statements, and reminded it wasn't so much the content of his opinions, but the unprofessional way he expressed them. He can be a professor emeritus, and well cited clinical psychologist, and a Twitter Troll, but not at the same time.

He is free to express himself, but if he speaks as a Psychologist, he's expected to not "express professional opinions in a way "may be reasonably regarded by members of the profession as disgraceful, dishonourable and/or unprofessional."
If he fails to do so, this could result in professional misconduct charges, and at some point losing his license to practice clinical psychology.

From the Court Case:

> The Panel recognized Dr. Peterson’s “right to freedom of expression” but expressed concern about the significant “impact risks” in this case given that “public statements that are de-meaning, degrading, and unprofessional may cause harm, both to the people they are directed at, and to the
impacted and other communities more broadly.”

> Peterson’s tweet in which it was alleged he encouraged people to commit suicide (“you’re free to leave at any point”), finding that, while “provocative and inflammatory” it “could be interpreted as innuendo, a joke, or par-
ody”, and did not “rise to the level of disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional conduct.”

> The Panel is concerned that making public statements that may be inconsistent with the professional standards, policies, and ethics currently adopted by the College poses moderate risks of harm to the public. These potential harms include undermining public trust in the profession of psychology, and trust in the College’s ability to regulate the profession in the public interest. Public statements of this nature may also raise questions about Dr. Peterson’s ability to appropriately carry out his responsibilities as a registered psychologist.

e.g.

- referring to former clients as "vindictive" and sprouting "a pack of lies",

- by referring to Elliot Page as “her” and by their former name, and “by calling Catherine McKenney an ‘appalling self-righteous moralizing
thing’ …Dr. Peterson may be engaging in degrading, demeaning, and unprofessional comments.”

> referring to the physician who performed Elliot Page’s surgery as a “‘criminal’ appears to be in- flammatory and unprofessional.”

- refering to people as a 'prik', or an “appalling self-righteous moralizing thing”,

- speaking about air pollution and child deaths, and stating “it’s just poor children, and the world has too many people on it anyways",

>"looked at cumulatively, these public statements may be reasonably regarded by members of the profession as disgraceful, dishonourable and/or unprofessional.

[0] http://www.wisdomofpeterson.com/

[1] https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23924637/peterson-v-c...

[2] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/jordan-peterson-court...