Celdran found guilty in ‘Damaso’

[SioDenz]

---

I didn't say it's alright to be rude in Church and I don't condone what Celdran did. I've said that many times before so you can stop going around in circles repeating the same stuff that has no relevance to my post. What I said was that in a democratic society, the balance between freedom of expression and religious feelings should be tilted in favor of freedom of expression. Religious feelings shouldn't be ignored but our laws and penalties should reflect a bias in favor of the right to free speech while at the same time discouraging offensive speech. Any amount of jailtime for what is largely a victimless crime violates human rights. Your reasoning is the same one Islamic terrorists use whenever they have their violent reactions because they felt offended.

I don't condone jaywalking or spitting on the streets but does that mean I should support jailtime for such minor crimes? Whether you support these draconian laws or not depends on how much you understand the balance needed in a democratic country.

So you dont condone what he did man diay. So unsay gusto nimu dili lang prisohon kay freedom of expression man kaha? So para nimu unsay maayung buhaton ngadtu niya nga ni agree man kaha ka nga di maayu iyang gibuhat?

sa iyang specific nga kaso unsay buhaton ngadtu niya para maka ingun ka nga "the balance between freedom of expression and religious feelings should be tilted in favor of freedom of expression. "? just want to hear your suggestion...

[rickflag]

Para naku o dapat i punish siya pero iya punishment dapat di sad ana kabug-at, 2months to 1 year? That's too much. Puede ra man siya street cleaning or 100 push ups ba.

[carmicael]

lest my opinions be misread as "extremist" or "hardcore", be it known that i am calling for the immediate change of our charter.

Read what I said. I didn't condone his actions, I consider the law oppressive.

i am sorry to burst your bubble, but, the fact is: i read what you said. and upon carefully observing this recent post of yours, i am of the opinion that you didn't read what you previously posted.

recall this excerpt from your older post (the post in question):

A true democracy puts freedom of expression above freedom from being offended.

the statement above is your premise, but it is missing a conclusion (possibly by omission). following your train of thought, we can infer that your conclusion possibly runs this way: the judgement should have not been guilty.

if a law explicitly states that an act is a crime, asking for vindication when the evidence against such vindication is clear and convincing, would mean condoning said act. to condone, by definition, is to disregard or overlook something illegal, objectionable, or the like.

so, right back at you: read what i said (and what you said, for that matter).

but, i digress.

Don't you know when that law was written and why? It was written during Spanish colonial times to strike fear of the church into the natives because at that time the church and state were united in their goal of perpetuating colonial rule.

durum hoc est sed ita lex scripta est (because latin makes you sound smarter). in addition, when or why a law was written does not matter in the judgement of this specific case. the decision of the judge was not based on the constitutionality or morality of the law in question, but merely on the merits of the case and why the said law was broken. unless this law is struck down as unconstitutional by the gods at padre faura, or the subject case's decision is reversed by the same, the verdict stands: guilty.

assuming for the sake of argument that the church is responsible for the creation of the said law to "strike fear of the church into the natives", let us not forget the fact that our own people participated in a plebiscite, and in effect, ratified the law.

And I see JcBoy, one of this forum's hardcore Islamists is now one of your supporters. =)

i fail to see why associating me with someone else (whom you label negatively as "hardcore Islamist") would help your argument. he is entitled to agree with anybody's opinion.

on a different topic: i noticed that the "hitler card" is your favorite when it comes to proving your point. well, in this case hitler is substituted with "religious extremists". you know that this does not help you prove your point, right? au contraire, it makes your argument look weak and makes you look desperate.

on a final note (for this post, of course), let me quote an impressive opinion from getrealphilippines.com:

Whatever service that happened to be transpiring in the Manila Cathedral at the time (whether it was a Holy Mass or some sort of “ecumenical service” ek ek) is not relevant.
The only thing relevant is where the stunt was exhibited.

enjoy your fail.

[etienne]

as i said before if you're going to protect religious feelings above freedom of expression, fine, but quit pretending our country champions freedom or democracy because that's blatantly false and laughable to countries that practice true democracy as opposed to the fake one we have.

the law is oppressive and anti-democratic. or lets call this law and the jailing of celdran freedom loving and democratic even if its a lie just to satisfy the church! copy russia paste philippines.. lol

jus because someone is being punished for offending the church doesnt instanly mean we have a 'fake' democracy, thats an overstatement. our democracy may be flawed but im sure it isnt fake. try living in nokor, iran, iraq, afghanistan, china, vietnam, rwanda, belarus, cuba..

democracy doesnt entitle someone to offend feelings and get away unpunished. remember that we thers also freedom of religion.

[monroy]

lest my opinions be misread as "extremist" or "hardcore", be it known that i am calling for the immediate change of our charter.

I don't give a shit about charter change, don't change the topic

i am sorry to burst your bubble, but, the fact is: i read what you said. and upon carefully observing this recent post of yours, i am of the opinion that you didn't read what you previously posted.

recall this excerpt from your older post (the post in question):


the statement above is your premise, but it is missing a conclusion (possibly by omission). following your train of thought, we can infer that your conclusion possibly runs this way: the judgement should have not been guilty.

if a law explicitly states that an act is a crime, asking for vindication when the evidence against such vindication is clear and convincing, would mean condoning said act. to condone, by definition, is to disregard or overlook something illegal, objectionable, or the like.

You've read my post but somehow you missed the many times I've made it clear that the problem isn't that he was convicted but the problem is that the law is outdated and incompatible with democracy. Post no further until you really do understand my post.

so, right back at you: read what i said (and what you said, for that matter).

but, i digress.

I read what you said. Where did I misread what you read? Post exact quote and the corresponding response that shows misunderstanding of your post.

durum hoc est sed ita lex scripta est (because latin makes you sound smarter). in addition, when or why a law was written does not matter in the judgement of this specific case. the decision of the judge was not based on the constitutionality or morality of the law in question, but merely on the merits of the case and why the said law was broken. unless this law is struck down as unconstitutional by the gods at padre faura, or the subject case's decision is reversed by the same, the verdict stands: guilty.

Da fuq? We have many laws that are grossly outdated that have remained in the books because our politicians are lazy, incompetent fools. The planned revision of the RPC (which is in dire need of an update) has been postponed time and again and so to this day our country continues to be ruled by a criminal code that was written in the 18th century and was last revised 1930. But I digress, because my position is that the law is incompatible with democracy. Your position is that it's democratic and freedom loving. Which position makes sense and which position is not really depends on one's understanding of what democracy is.

assuming for the sake of argument that the church is responsible for the creation of the said law to "strike fear of the church into the natives", let us not forget the fact that our own people participated in a plebiscite, and in effect, ratified the law.

The people ratified the Constitution, not this law.

i fail to see why associating me with someone else (whom you label negatively as "hardcore Islamist") would help your argument. he is entitled to agree with anybody's opinion.

I don't associate you with Islamists, I associate your posts and your thinking with the same reasoning used by Islamists. I agree, he is entitled to his opinion and you to yours.

on a different topic: i noticed that the "hitler card" is your favorite when it comes to proving your point. well, in this case hitler is substituted with "religious extremists". you know that this does not help you prove your point, right? au contraire, it makes your argument look weak and makes you look desperate.

Quite wrong, since I never talked about hitler. Present neo-nazi movement is not hitler. The analogy was with the exercise of hate speech and how it's condoned in western, developed democracies. Now, just to make it clear, are you seriously saying what Celdran did was worse than what neo-nazis do in the exercise of their free speech just because he did it inside a church Give me a break, man what kind of logic is this....

on a final note (for this post, of course), let me quote an impressive opinion from getrealphilippines.com:


enjoy your fail.

Who the hell is that guy and why should anyone care?

[monroy]

@etienne, and other guy: I didn't say the crime should go unpunished. I believe this is the fourth time I've said this and I hope the last. For me it's always been about proportionality of penalties to the crime committed.

[carmicael]

I don't give a shit about charter change, don't change the topic

you are quite the charmer are you not? i admire your fluency in french.

does the word disclaimer ring a bell? because that statement was one. lest you classify me as one of the people you perceive as "extremist" or "fundamentalist".

---

You've read my post but somehow you missed the many times I've made it clear that the problem isn't that he was convicted but the problem is that the law is outdated and incompatible with democracy. Post no further until you really do understand my post.

(notice that i have added some horizontal dividers. this makes it easier on your part)
again, you don't read my post before you refute any of my claims, do you? the quote which you refer to in this reply (which i have qouted) is not in response to "incompatibility" with democracy, but rather, on your statement that you "do not condone" whatever the accused has done. quotes 1 and 2 from my previous post are there to make a single argument, that you are perceived to be condoning the act of the accused. think before you click.

case and point.

---

I read what you said. Where did I misread what you read? Post exact quote and the corresponding response that shows misunderstanding of your post.

i never said you misunderstood or misread my post. i stipulated something much more severe: that you didn't read. refer to counter-argument at the previous quote of this post.

---

Da fuq? We have many laws that are grossly outdated that have remained in the books because our politicians are lazy, incompetent fools. The planned revision of the RPC (which is in dire need of an update) has been postponed time and again and so to this day our country continues to be ruled by a criminal code that was written in the 18th century and was last revised 1930. But I digress, because my position is that the law is incompatible with democracy. Your position is that it's democratic and freedom loving. Which position makes sense and which position is not really depends on one's understanding of what democracy is.


The people ratified the Constitution, not this law.

who voted for these lazy, incompetent fools? we get the government that we deserve. our own people had a hand in creating the law. the church does not enjoy the monopoly of the blame for this wretched provision.

even if the law is, in your opinion, not compatible with democracy, it does not change the fact that it was written. so it shall be upheld. my position is not "that it's democratic and freedom loving", rather, i am of the opinion that our laws are not perfect, and in some cases may not be even moral. dura lex, sed lex : even draconian laws must be followed and enforced; if one disagrees with the result, one must seek to change the law. that is why some people advocate that the supreme court declare unconstitutional the latest bruhaha on laws : the anti-cybercrime law.

---

I don't associate you with Islamists, I associate your posts and your thinking with the same reasoning used by Islamists. I agree, he is entitled to his opinion and you to yours.

again, how does this help prove your point?

---

Quite wrong, since I never talked about hitler. Present neo-nazi movement is not hitler. The analogy was with the exercise of hate speech and how it's condoned in western, developed democracies. Now, just to make it clear, are you seriously saying what Celdran did was worse than what neo-nazis do in the exercise of their free speech just because he did it inside a church Give me a break, man what kind of logic is this....

i never said you talked about hitler. i said you made frequent use of the "hitler card", but you replace hitler with religious fundamentalits/extremists instead. would you like an explanation on what a "hitler card" argument is?

whether or not the accused performed a much horrible act than the neo-nazis is irrelevant. the issue here is not the way he expressed himself, but where he did so. the punishment is severe, yes, i agree. but nothing can be done unless the law is repealed. he must be punished as mandated by law.

what kind of logic this is? well, i would say flawless. but don't mind me, that's just my opinion.

---

Who the hell is that guy and why should anyone care?

i merely gave you a reading suggestion, to expand your point of view, so to speak. that is, of course, if you are open to expanding your point of view.

cheers.

[balipseyev]

Freedom of Expression/Speech is not absolute...

Supreme Court G.R. No. 172203

Freedom of expression enjoys an exalted place in the hierarchy of constitutional rights. Free expression however, “is not absolute for it may be so regulated that [its exercise shall neither] be injurious to the equal enjoyment of others having equal rights, nor injurious to the rights of the community or society.


Now Celdran have no right to disrupt other people from praying in the church... You must express your opinion in the right place...

[balipseyev]

Unprotected Speech

Freedom of speech is not an absolute right. Not all speech is constitutionally protected. Speech that incites lawless conduct, so-called fighting words (words that provoke physical retaliation), libelous or defamatory speech, and obscenity can legitimately be prohibited or punished by the government.

Freedom of Speech in the Philippines | Suite101

[redemption32]

who voted for these lazy, incompetent fools? we get the government that we deserve. our own people had a hand in creating the law. the church does not enjoy the monopoly of the blame for this wretched provision.

This is totally off-topic, but I just wanna point out one thing from your "speech".

This is a good way to look at things.