Where is the line between freedom of speech...

MJ Hannigan wrote:
No that was a honest observation. And you should care about the past and what some people had to go through so you have a place here at totjo.

As i said made sure you post a full link here to my show you quoted from but clearly did not understand. Soundbites are cute and all but they do not tell the full story. And as I recall I did not mention any specific group, site or forum in tonights episode as it related to quote you brought up. I did mention a few sites at the end of the episode but I do not recall Totjo being on that list. Now on Monday I will be listening to my episode from tonight for sound quality and material of the show and if I did mention totjo at all I will let you know.

If anything of that episode made you feel uncomfortable feel free to call in next week and give voice to it where it belongs.

Oh I do care about the past. But as that is no longer how things are done here, it is not a relevant argument.

I never said anything about TOTJO. The quote is about JEDIISM. (or is it not Hannigan? You said the words, what were your intentions?)

I have already posted the interesting piece from your show and we are discussing it. Calling in seems rather redundant.

Brenna wrote:

MJ Hannigan wrote:
No that was a honest observation. And you should care about the past and what some people had to go through so you have a place here at totjo.

As i said made sure you post a full link here to my show you quoted from but clearly did not understand. Soundbites are cute and all but they do not tell the full story. And as I recall I did not mention any specific group, site or forum in tonights episode as it related to quote you brought up. I did mention a few sites at the end of the episode but I do not recall Totjo being on that list. Now on Monday I will be listening to my episode from tonight for sound quality and material of the show and if I did mention totjo at all I will let you know.

If anything of that episode made you feel uncomfortable feel free to call in next week and give voice to it where it belongs.

Oh I do care about the past. But as that is no longer how things are done here, it is not a relevant argument.

I never said anything about TOTJO. The quote is about JEDIISM. (or is it not Hannigan? You said the words, what were your intentions?)

I have already posted the interesting piece from your show and we are discussing it. Calling in seems rather redundant.

So at what point was totjo mentioned on tonight's episode? I am wondering where your paranoia is steaming from. Perhaps you should seek professional help about that issue.

Now the government does keep tabs on things that have the potental for cult like behavior. I personally do not support this however it is what it is. I also did say that it is my belief that those who had "star roles" in the documentary will also be closely looked at. I guess you forgot about that part or you did not understand the meaning to the expressions used.

I repeat. I did not mention TOTJO. I asked what people here though about that quote pertaining to Jediism.


And again. Another personal attack. Please cease.

Brenna wrote: I repeat. I did not mention TOTJO. I asked what people here though about that quote pertaining to Jediism.


And again. Another personal attack. Please cease.

I am not sure where you saw a personal attack but well i guess that is your perception. So you are not denying the points that were made about a few people being on the radar after the documentary comes out.

I have no idea what you're talking about as you're not actually making sense now.

However. I have just been reminded by a friend that I cannot force you to take responsibility for what you say, the assumptions you make or the unsubstantiated judgments you feel entitled to pass.

As anything I say results in personal and unnessesary attacks, the floor is yours sir. We are done here.

MJ Hannigan wrote:

... I never said anything about TOTJO...

So at what point was totjo mentioned on tonight's episode?

Earlier in this thread:

MJ Hannigan wrote: ... You seem to have issues with both reading English and Hearing it. Perhaps i will do a youtube vid for you using sign language...

So brilliant!

I shall respond to the actual topic at hand once I'm back from uni later today. I hope it won't be at page 20 by that time.^^

The part about Jediism starts shortly after the 00:06:00 mark. That's six minutes into the episode.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/jedi-realist-radio/2014/09/29/jedi-realist-radio-presents-the-jedi-realist-mindset

Anyone wishing to contact Mr. Hannigan may do so at: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/jedi-realist-radio .

Brenna wrote: Im curious,

At what point do you believe that the freedom of speech becomes comment deliberately designed to undermine or discredit others. [sic]

Why? What's wrong with undermining or discrediting others? I don't think anyone should be protected against critique. I also don't think that freedom of speech alone is good enough to discredit anything other than those who will insidiously try to abridge it or that anything that has a solid footing can be undermined by something that has not at least a comparably solid footing of its own.
Of course my point is assuming an honest argument which is far from always a given. I assume here that ad hominem attacks, red herrings, straw men and genetic fallacies (to name a few) are not employed. But that is a fair assumption, too, because no argument based on any of those fallacies can undermine or much less discredit anything, let alone something that is credible to begin with.

For example, is this freedom of speech or verging on defamation?

Thoughts on Jediism-
[A Quote from Hannigan's show]

Technically this is neither. It is a statement rather than a concept, so it can't be freedom of speech. Now, is it defamation? I don't think so. The gentleman said that this is what he felt and thought about it. He didn't accuse anyone or anything of anything, he didn't attack or threaten anyone either. I don't think there is anything particularly offensive about the word cult but then that is not even something he said anyone is. Nor would it matter if I did find it offensive.
I don't think words have some kind of magical power and I don't think any one word should be taboo just because some don't like to hear it. I would be more sympathetic if he accused anyone of anything, be it only of being a cult. And even then he is still free to make that accusation and make a case for it, no matter how right or wrong he turned out to be in the end. The wrongest thing an accused could do is tell anyone that he must not say such a thing. That'd be playing right into his hands. Also, feeling offended by a claim has no bearing on its validity. It has no bearing on anything , actually.

There is something to be said for decorum.

Decorum is subjective to ones culture though.

I always assume that people understand that on the internet, the risk you take by posting, is that someone may answer.

The attempt to control the answers, not only in content, but manner they are delivered, should be a red flag.

That said, people can cross the line, and that line for me, is when it becomes a personal affair.

With Brenna and Hannigan for example, it became personal, and as I have been following the threads, it seems both were willing to take it to that level.