Celdran found guilty in ‘Damaso’

[tingkagol]

---

However, society in general also acknowledges limitations in the Freedom of Expression. Any expression/speech that may follow the "harm principle" and/or the "offense principle" is considered a limitation of the aforementioned right.

Education for Freedom Lesson 4

If we do not criminalize the violations of these limitations, then might as well throw those limitations out the door.

Edited: And oh! Good to see you on the opposite side, for once! hehe.

Good link. I actually agree with most of its contents. "Obscenity" is a bit tricky though. "Clear and Present Danger" also needs to be elaborated more. My point remains - free speech remains a freedom only until it infringes the rights of others.

We're actually on the same page. I just think Celdran is in jail for the wrong reasons. He shouldn't be in jail for "offending religious feelings" but because he invaded other people's right to practice their religion in peace in that church.

[tingkagol]

Yes, I agree, but when and where you say it, there should be a limitation. In this case, he stood in the altar,shouted and raised a placard with "Damaso" on it during an Ecumenical Service. Since that's incitement of violence, then ipso facto that's an infringement of the rights of the faithful present.

"Damaso" is not an incitement to violence.

But yes, I agree it was in the wrong place and time.

[Hammer_and_Sickle]

That particular penal code violates Article 3 of the Bill of Rights of the Philippine Consitution:


Freedom of speech/expression/press as mentioned in that article refers to the international human rights laws, which the Phils has signed on to and ratified:


Yes, I completely agree that offending the church-goers in their place of worship was detestable, offensive, and in poor judgement. However, I would completely disagree that the same act should be punishable by law. It shouldn't be. EVER. That is the very essence of freedom of expression - to be able say anything without fear of being jailed, just as long as what you say does not infringe on other people's rights.

They should have invoked Article III Section 5 of the Bill of Rights instead- which is Freedom of Religion. That is if they can prove that Celdran was prohibiting them from exercising their religion.

...or trespassing.

ako'y palit ani beh,

kapoyan na jud ko ani pinisting mag pina maayu, mura'g kahebaw na tanan.

kana bitaw imong gi-point out, na article 3 sa constitution, "non executive provision" mn na dong,
kung mo ingun ka'g "non executive provision" dong, kaylangan ka ug Law para mo mo execute ani na provision,
almost tanan provision sa constitution "non executive provision" dong"

kana imong human rights dong, de na mo apply diri, kahebaw ka ngano? ang Pilipinas, aduna ma'y State identity(kalimot nako kung unsa jud to na term), and secondpoint, ang kaso ge pass mn sa isa ka regional trial court dong, wala mn gi pass sa international trial court, pero pwde mn mo file ka dong,

de ta mo adhere sa UN code dong, ka'y aduna mn ta'y kaugalingon na Code dong, mao na ayaw e-apply ang UN human rights code,

[redemption32]

We're actually on the same page. I just think Celdran is in jail for the wrong reasons. He shouldn't be in jail for "offending religious feelings" but because he invaded other people's right to practice their religion in peace in that church.

I'm sorry, I failed to understand your first statements d.i. I actually do not know if there are grounds for criminalization by "offending religious feelings". Yeah, he should be in jail because he invaded other people's rights to practice their religion in peace BUT NOT because he offended religious feelings.

Ooops! My bad.

However, I do not agree that "Damaso" is not an incitement of violence.

The word was meant as an insult (like the way I used it in the other thread), no question about that. If you insult them on their property, then I find that an incitement of violence.

[tingkagol]

ako'y palit ani beh,

kapoyan na jud ko ani pinisting mag pina maayu, mura'g kahebaw na tanan.

kana bitaw imong gi-point out, na article 3 sa constitution, "non executive provision" mn na dong,
kung mo ingun ka'g "non executive provision" dong, kaylangan ka ug Law para mo mo execute ani na provision,
almost tanan provision sa constitution "non executive provision" dong"

kana imong human rights dong, de na mo apply diri, kahebaw ka ngano? ang Pilipinas, aduna ma'y State identity(kalimot nako kung unsa jud to na term), and secondpoint, ang kaso ge pass mn sa isa ka regional trial court dong, wala mn gi pass sa international trial court, pero pwde mn mo file ka dong,

de ta mo adhere sa UN code dong, ka'y aduna mn ta'y kaugalingon na Code dong, mao na ayaw e-apply ang UN human rights code,

Yes, bahala nalang na ang UN international human rights. Basta naa tay atong balaod ug mao gyuy masunod! Basta balaod na, dili na ma-ammend. Mao na gyud na sa hantod2x.

[redemption32]

Hala! Naa lage napikon diri??

Kalma lang braaaaadddd... We're just discussing opinions here.

Let's not use terms like "pinisting mag pina maayu, mura'g kahebaw na tanan"..

Musumbalik ra pud baya nah nimu.

I could point out the mistakes in your argument but I think Tingkagol would want to do so.

Off-topic: Bai Tingk, naa na'y nipalit!! Bwahahahah.. Namaligya d.i ka?? hehe

[Hammer_and_Sickle]

Hala! Naa lage napikon diri??

Kalma lang braaaaadddd... We're just discussing opinions here.

Let's not use terms like "pinisting mag pina maayu, mura'g kahebaw na tanan"..

Musumbalik ra pud baya nah nimu.

I could point out the mistakes in your argument but I think Tingkagol would want to do so.

Off-topic: Bai Tingk, naa na'y nipalit!! Bwahahahah.. Namaligya d.i ka?? hehe

sorry bai, expression ra nm ko na "pinisting yawa"

"ako palit ani beh" figuratively speaking ra ko ana diha dapita, sorry bai

nasakit d-ay ka sa pag type nako ug "pinisti" bai? pinisti,pinisti,pinisti,pinisti,pinisti,pinisti,pi nisti,...sakit kaayu?

[carmicael]

i have had a lot of complaints on how the Church manages things. for one, I was vocal about the perceived impropriety regarding the money used by the Church for the mass in honor of St. Calungsod. but this time, I think the RCC is well within its rights.

freedom of speech is not absolute. the accused performed his act in a private place owned by the complainant, in this case the RCC. refer to the the decision of the Supreme Court below:

G.R. No. L-65366 November 9, 1983
JOSE B.L. REYES, in behalf of the ANTI-BASES COALITION (ABC), petitioner,
vs.
RAMON BAGATSING, as Mayor of the City of Manila, respondent.

8. By way of a summary The applicants for a permit to hold an assembly should inform the licensing authority of the date, the public place where and the time when it will take place. If it were a private place, only the consent of the owner or the one entitled to its legal possession is required. Such application should be filed well ahead in time to enable the public official concerned to appraise whether there may be valid objections to the grant of the permit or to its grant but at another public place.

imagine naay tao mag broadcast ug porn sa skwelahan sa inyong elementary na anak. if mag argue siya iya man to "freedom" to express, di gyud siya ka daog. propriety is the key here. also, remember the phrase "your freedom ends where my nose begins"

a great piece of opinion: Get Real Post : Why Carlos Celdran should go to jail for his 2010 Damaso stunt

[Bricksand]

Guys we are here to discuss the said topic not to point out one's behavior towards the issue - that's too personal. You can't label Maturity state of a person base on what he posted that's lame observation.

Whatever opinions being expressed in this thread should be respected with utmost manner in my honest opinion.

Celdran acted with his belief you may find immoral but he only did what he think was his rights as a citizen.

"A Manila court on Monday found tour guide Carlos Celdran guilty of offending religious feelings when, dressed like Jose Rizal, he stood in front of the main altar of Manila Cathedral during an ecumenical service, shouted and raised a placard with the word “Damaso” on it."

Is this "Obscenity" already? that's very funny. If we will not stress out our grievances or voices they will continue to oppress the oppressed - it was been for hundred of years that they chained us to our own sufferings.

I'm not referring to all so called HOLY people but some of them are just bunch of fools claiming to be prophet of God and keep using the name of the LORD for their own benefit. If you haven't noticed that up to now then it's your problem - you choose to act morally blinded by their false philosophy.

Why are we always afraid to expose the truth?

[Joseph20102011]

I was not surprised that Carlos Celdran was sentenced for a prison term as what he did of expressing his resentment against the Catholic bishops was a deterrent to the freedom of expressing religious beliefs without disruption. Although I understand what Carlos Celdran has been fighting for, but we need to set our limits on how to express your resentments against someone we never impress. For me, it is a reasonable one that if we resent someone or something, we should find a proper venue where we can express our resentments, not directly attacking the person or an institution we hate in person or within its premises. We should think that our enemy or an institution we never like deserves utmost respect like how we respect ourselves.