PinoyDVD: The Pinoy Digital Video & Devices Community
Community => Big Talk => Chit-Chat => Religion => Topic started by: Klaus Weasley on Jan 12, 2015 at 11:24 PM
-
With the recent conviction of Carlos Celdran and the shooting of cartoonists in the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, I would like to ask the board, where do they stand on blasphemy laws and whether or not they should exist in a free and democratic country that guarantees free speech.
Of course, it comes to no surprise that I think they should not exist. No one should HAVE to fear imprisonment if they criticize, mock or ridicule any idea or any person up to and including religion and God especially not in a democracy that guarantees freedom of speech.
-
first of all you dont need to ask the board about their stand on the said issues. the fact that you can voice anything in the religion thread and lgbt thread shows that they are allowing us to have a free discussion with a little bit of moderation.
btw, carlos celdran exeeded the boundery of freedom of speech and he should take responsibility for his actions just like the charlie hebdo thing. criticizing is different from mocking or ridicule. you are learned enough to know their differences, i think. we are living in a cause and effect environment. what you say or do, eventually will have a direct implication of what you will be dealing later on in life.....the effect you'll be getting only has three options:
1) the offended party respects your tirade and be lenient to you even if you went beyond what is decent and reasonable......
2)you will end up in jail.......
3)you'll end up dead.......
life is choice. life is about choices. choose wisely.
-
What is "rude" and what is "decent" is very subjective. That's why we have FREE speech. No government or entity should threaten your life or freedom for what you say, no matter how offensive it is. If you are offended with what I say, you can ignore me, you can criticize/insult me back, you can sue me, you can have me fired, etc. But in a true democracy and in a real free society, one should not be afraid of death or imprisonment for expressing his or her ideas.
Freedom of speech actually does not protect "polite" speech. It protects offensive speech because it is the only way we can progress as a society. New ideas are often deemed "offensive". Criticizing/poking fun of public figures are also deemed "rude". Criticizing old, antiquated ideas is also considered by some to be "offensive". Can it go too far? Sure. But I think any excesses it may have can only solved by.....MORE free speech because free speech means FREE exchange of ideas without fear of being silenced by prison or death. If the most vile, disgusting forms of expression are protected then progressive ideas can flourish freely.
Religion -- ALL RELIGION -- like all ideas or philosophies -- is not and SHOULD not be exempted from criticism AND mocking and ridicule by the government. Period.
-
"Homosexuality is sinful and abnormalism and in my opinion is a psychological disorder."
by just saying this out... puwede kang kasuhan ng discrimination :)...
In some state of US... you will be imprisoned just by voicing out your opinion against LGBT... but these LGBT supporters are allowed to mock, ridicule, criticize any relgion and their god as long as they want anytime, anywhere...
asking for freedom of speech and yet they are the one violating freedom of speech...
A pastor served 1 month prison time just by preaching that 'homosexuality is sinful' in his own church... where is the freedom of speech?
sa kaso ni Celdran... meron siyang right motive but wrong method... gawain ng tanga at ng bastos ang magprotesta sa loob mismo ng simbahan...
walang masama kung murahin man niya o yurakan pangalan ko... huwag na huwag lang niya gagawin sa sarili kong pamamahay... may paglalagyan siya...
the same when voicing out your opinion... kung nasa tamang pag-iisip lang sana si beltran ng mga oras na iyon... di naman siya makukulong eh...
ang tamang salita diyan eh... tamang respeto at paggalang lang sa mga taong tahimik na nagwoworship sa loob ng simbahan... magprotesta kayo sa labas ng vicinity ng simbahan... walang bastusan...
what is "rude" and "decent": isa lang masasabi ko...
"mock me, ridicule me, criticize my opinion outside my house... not inside my house" :)
-
"Homosexuality is sinful and abnormalism and in my opinion is a psychological disorder."
by just saying this out... puwede kang kasuhan ng discrimination :)...
In some state of US... you will be imprisoned just by voicing out your opinion against LGBT... but these LGBT supporters are allowed to mock, ridicule, criticize any relgion and their god as long as they want anytime, anywhere...
asking for freedom of speech and yet they are the one violating freedom of speech...
That is absolutely not true. You can get sued for defamation, sure but that's civil, not legal.
Also, discrimination is different from religious expression. You believe and say and express any idea you want but if you cross the boundary to DISCRIMINATION, ibang usapan na yan.
A pastor served 1 month prison time just by preaching that 'homosexuality is sinful' in his own church... where is the freedom of speech?
Can you provide the link to that piece of news? Mukhang gawa-gawa lang ng mga anti-gay websites yan ah. Either a.) not true; b.) half-true. It might be true that he was sent to jail but not for preaching against homosexuals.
-
its a statement and opinion regarding one's action... not to a particular person or individual...
you're saying that justifiable ang ginawa ni Celdran to stage a protest inside the church?
i am not against voicing out or expressing our own opinion... but to do it inside the church... i think he crossed the boundary of freedom of speech... :) magsusuot ako ng custome mocking someone's religion then papasok ako sa sarli nilang bahay sambahan at doon ako magsusumigaw... i really dont think gawain ng isang matinong tao ang ganyan... pambabastos ang tawag diyan...
eto tinatawag nating mga taong inaabuso ang tamang kahulugan ng "Freedom of Speech"...
same for LGBT... i have an opinion against homosexuality and i believe i have all the rights to voice out my own opinion regarding "homosexuality"... but honestly... i wont voice it out during their meetings, private meetings, seminars, celebrations... i wont stand in front of them holding a placard that i know will hurt their feelings... or go to the funeral of murdered transgender standing in front holding a placard "A Male".
you can't just go to someone's worship area and then declaring that what they believe is false... then you will invoke the rights or freedom of speech/expression...
kung ginawa niya iyon outside vicinity of the church... sasaludo ako sa kanya... eh pinairal ang katangahan at kahambugan eh... mabuti nga sa kanya makulong... walang respeto sa pagiging sacred ng worship service...
-
its a statement and opinion regarding one's action... not to a particular person or individual...
you're saying that justifiable ang ginawa ni Celdran to stage a protest inside the church?
i am not against voicing out or expressing our own opinion... but to do it inside the church... i think he crossed the boundary of freedom of speech... :) magsusuot ako ng custome mocking someone's religion then papasok ako sa sarli nilang bahay sambahan at doon ako magsusumigaw... i really dont think gawain ng isang matinong tao ang ganyan... pambabastos ang tawag diyan...
eto tinatawag nating mga taong inaabuso ang tamang kahulugan ng "Freedom of Speech"...
They could just charge him with trespassing or even vandalism. Perhaps even just reprimanded him for being rude.
My quarrel with this is NOT that he was thrown in jail but that he was charged for "offending religious feelings" which sets a very dangerous precedent because this opens the gates to let anyone charge anyone with "offending religious feelings". The Catholic Church could charge an atheist blog criticizing them with "offending religious feelings". If we indeed have a law/loophole in the books concerning that, we should have it removed. It has no place in a democracy.
You say, "Well, there should be limits". I would argue, no there shouldn't be limits. As long as you're not hurting anyone, damaging other people's property or encroaching on other people's civil liberties, you should be free to express anything you like, no matter how offensive.
I personally find your opinions offensive. But if a gay atheist politician wants to throw you in jail for your PDVD posts, I will be defending you because you have a right to express your opinions and your views, no matter how abhorrent I personally think they are. (FYI: Bullying gay people and discriminating against them is NOT freedom of expression anymore. It's like you can be racist against black people and express racist opinions but you can't go around beating up and killing black people.)
-
"in a place devoted to religious worship or during the celebration of any religious ceremony shall perform acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful..."
blogs... magazine... press... articles... hindi covered ng article 133... if catholics wants to extend art.133 on this.. well magkabakat tayong ipaglalaban ang karapatan natin sa freedom of speech/expression... :)
we have freedom of religion... and that kind of act idiotic actions must be punished... how can we express our freedom of relgion if from time to time merong taong basta basta na lang sisigaw sa gitna ng kalagitnaan ng worship service sa loob ng aming simbhan...
and i believe every relligion in the Philippines must be protected from this kind of idiotic actions and arrogant person like Carlos Celdran...
-
subukan mong sumigaw ng "sunog! sunog" or "may bombang sasabog dito!" sa loob ng isang crowded theater...
tign natin kung ano sasapitin mo.....
wrt the charlie hebdo, i think the punishment was too severe...death.....sobra yon million times over...
-
klause, i think your not getting the point.....nobody questions the way we express our critcism, its freedom of expression, right? gawin mo lang sa tamang lugar!! hindi lahat ng lugar eh pwede kang mambastos o manlaiit at sakaling maparusahan ka eh ikaw pa ang pipili ng gusto mong parusa sa iyo!
@ w/ regards to charlie hebdo, alam natin how the muslims reacts if you mock their religion or mocking their prophet. and those white people knew the implications and the possible backlash bec of their drawings....they went on to publish it, so expect something bad in return...
may kwento sa davao......
may isang drug pusher na nakulong at sinabihan daw ni mayor duterte na huwag na uli uulit pag nakalaya at bka mamatay lang sya. pagkalabas nya sa kulungan sya ay nagpatuloy pa uli sa kanyang pagtutulak ng droga. muli syang nahuli. at sa kanyang paglaya muli siya ay pinatay mga isang daang metro lang ang layo sa presinto na kung saan sya nangaling. sinabi ng mga kritiko na ito daw ay murder at si mayor duterte daw ang may kagagawan nito... ang sagot ni mayor, hindi ito murder kundi suicide kse alam nya na mamamatay sya pag nagtulak muli. eh nagtulak nga muli, kya nagpakamatay......
-
Delikadesa.
-
They could just charge him with trespassing or even vandalism. Perhaps even just reprimanded him for being rude.
My quarrel with this is NOT that he was thrown in jail but that he was charged for "offending religious feelings" which sets a very dangerous precedent because this opens the gates to let anyone charge anyone with "offending religious feelings". The Catholic Church could charge an atheist blog criticizing them with "offending religious feelings". If we indeed have a law/loophole in the books concerning that, we should have it removed. It has no place in a democracy.
You say, "Well, there should be limits". I would argue, no there shouldn't be limits. As long as you're not hurting anyone, damaging other people's property or encroaching on other people's civil liberties, you should be free to express anything you like, no matter how offensive.
I personally find your opinions offensive. But if a gay atheist politician wants to throw you in jail for your PDVD posts, I will be defending you because you have a right to express your opinions and your views, no matter how abhorrent I personally think they are. (FYI: Bullying gay people and discriminating against them is NOT freedom of expression anymore. It's like you can be racist against black people and express racist opinions but you can't go around beating up and killing black people.)
Simple lang naman ang assessment dyan di ba? Did Celdran break any law? He did. Celdran was charged with violating Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code. You may have your own opinion that the specific law is ludicrous. But it is still a law. And Celdran was found guilty of violating that law. And when you break the law, you deserve to be thrown in jail.
-
@ w/ regards to charlie hebdo, alam natin how the muslims reacts if you mock their religion or mocking their prophet. and those white people knew the implications and the possible backlash bec of their drawings....they went on to publish it, so expect something bad in return...
It's still wrong to kill them. Period. Most Muslims probably dislike or were offended by the cartoons but most sane people will not gun them down. It's like blaming a woman for being raped if she dresses provocatively.
may kwento sa davao......
may isang drug pusher na nakulong at sinabihan daw ni mayor duterte na huwag na uli uulit pag nakalaya at bka mamatay lang sya. pagkalabas nya sa kulungan sya ay nagpatuloy pa uli sa kanyang pagtutulak ng droga. muli syang nahuli. at sa kanyang paglaya muli siya ay pinatay mga isang daang metro lang ang layo sa presinto na kung saan sya nangaling. sinabi ng mga kritiko na ito daw ay murder at si mayor duterte daw ang may kagagawan nito... ang sagot ni mayor, hindi ito murder kundi suicide kse alam nya na mamamatay sya pag nagtulak muli. eh nagtulak nga muli, kya nagpakamatay......
This is morally wrong. Did Duterte at least offer to find him an alternative way to make a living apart from drug pushing? Yes, may mga taong matigas ang ulo. But that does not give him the license to kill him.
If you think is in any way justified, your morals are really skewed.
-
This is morally wrong
ngayon sir may morals ka na! saan nakabase yung morals mo sir?
how about having sex sith the same gender? iis it morally right for you to do it?
how about the mocking someone's religious belief? is it morally right for you to do it?
how about calling other people idiot if their opinion is not in parallel with yours? is it morally right for you to do it?
you've just made my day :D :D :D
-
It's still wrong to kill them. Period.
what they did was wrong too and it was reciprocated by a more wrongful act...
pag gumawa ka ng mali wag kang umasa na susuklian ka ng kabutihan. always expect the worst in return. you cannot just open your mouth and start mocking people or group of people and tell them that if you harm me, its MORALLY WRONG! PERIOD. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
what they did was wrong too and it was reciprocated by a more wrongful act...
pag gumawa ka ng mali wag kang umasa na susuklian ka ng kabutihan. always expect the worst in return. you cannot just open your mouth and start mocking people or group of people and tell them that if you harm me, its MORALLY WRONG! PERIOD. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
But again, that is wrong. We cannot live in fear that anything we say or write or draw could result in death or prison. If I criticize the government for their corruption, corrupt government officials will say that what I'm doing is offensive and they threaten to kill me. Is that right? Should I just shut up and not say or write anything? That's why free speech is important. We have to protect even offensive speech because "offensive" is subjective and if we start trying to decide what's appropriate and what's not appropriate, it's gonna open a can of worms where we legislate what we can say and write.
I'm not saying that we should not be responsible (you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, you can't slander someone, etc.) but if we are to live in an open, free, progressive and mature society, there should always be freedom of speech, even offensive speech.
Kaya maraming journalists ang namamatay sa Pilipinas. Maraming tao ang may mindset na kagaya mo.
-
Eto na lang tanong ko sa iyo Klaus...
Kung ginawa ni Celdran iyong katangahan niya sa labas ng vicinity ng simbahan... sa tingin mo may kaso siya?
-
But again, that is wrong. We cannot live in fear that anything we say or write or draw could result in death or prison. If I criticize the government for their corruption, corrupt government officials will say that what I'm doing is offensive and they threaten to kill me. Is that right? Should I just shut up and not say or write anything? That's why free speech is important. We have to protect even offensive speech because "offensive" is subjective and if we start trying to decide what's appropriate and what's not appropriate, it's gonna open a can of worms where we legislate what we can say and write.
I'm not saying that we should not be responsible (you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, you can't slander someone, etc.) but if we are to live in an open, free, progressive and mature society, there should always be freedom of speech, even offensive speech.
Kaya maraming journalists ang namamatay sa Pilipinas. Maraming tao ang may mindset na kagaya mo.
Well we also cannot say or start unfounded rumors or throw baseless accusation that are "actionable" whether in the form of offensive speech or criticism. Free speech is never absolute. Free is not really free. That is why we have libel and slander laws
-
Well we also cannot say or start unfounded rumors or throw baseless accusation that are "actionable" whether in the form of offensive speech or criticism. Free speech is never absolute. Free is not really free. That is why we have libel and slander laws
As I said, we should also be responsible. When I say free speech should be absolute, I mean, I absolutely free from any government sanctions or regulations whether fines, imprisonment or death. Free speech should NEVER, EVER be legislated or regulated. This also includes banning of books, films or any works of art.
-
Free speech should NEVER, EVER be legislated or regulated. This also includes banning of books, films or any works of art.
Never, ever? No limit whatsoever to free speech?
Including child pornography?
-
Including child pornography?
If it doesn't involve REAL children (because involving children in pornography is potentially harmful to their well-being, thereby crossing the line to harming another person's freedom and well-being), yes.
-
Yes, real children, below 18 years old.
Two 17 year-old lovers in Cambodia (where the age of consent is 13) make their own sex video. A Filipino purchases the video from them, and he wants to exhibit it in the Phils. at the movie houses in the malls.
Should it be allowed?
-
Yes, real children, below 18 years old.
Two 17 year-old lovers in Cambodia (where the age of consent is 13) make their own sex video. A Filipino purchases the video from them, and he wants to exhibit it at the movie houses at the malls.
Should it be allowed?
This is verging into the "age of consent" territory now which is a separate issue altogether. Personally, I think 16 should be the age of consent so TECHNICALLY, I would could care less about this as long as the teenage couple is also okay with it.
-
This is verging into the "age of consent" territory now which is a separate issue altogether. Personally, I think 16 should be the age of consent so TECHNICALLY, I would could care less about this as long as the teenage couple is also okay with it.
In other words, you are ok with child pornography. In the Phils., the age of consent is legally 18, and anyone who is below 18 is legally defined as a "child."
So it really doesn't matter what you think the age of consent should be.
How about seditious speech. On TV, the host encourages people to go to congress, and burn it while congress is in session, since they are all corrupt anyway.
Do you think that is covered by free speech?
-
i think this topic is highly contested and highly debatable, this could be an endless discussion...we need to define specifically the issue.
-
That's what I'm trying to establish.
Sir Klaus says free speech should be absolute, but I'm sure he will agree that there are some forms of speech which can be validly subjected to censorship.
After we agree that free speech is in fact not absolute, it is then that we will ultimately disagree on the extent of those limitations.
After that, we will just agree to disagree as to what those limitations should be.
Mas maayos ang kalalabasan, imbis na basta sabihin na kahit anong speech puwede.
-
Well we also cannot say or start unfounded rumors or throw baseless accusation that are "actionable" whether in the form of offensive speech or criticism. Free speech is never absolute. Free is not really free. That is why we have libel and slander laws
that is bad if you're directing it towards a person. you shouldn't be criminalized for doing that to an idea.
-
that is bad if you're directing it towards a person. you shouldn't be criminalized for doing that to an idea.
However Klaus wants absolute free speech. So yes it does include directing it towards a person.
-
Eeverything must be in order and in their proper place... and if you can't follow simple instruction or be a subject to higher authorities... might as well build your own government free from anything... maybe in the government you will create there will be an absolute freedom of speech...
anyone can voice out their own opinion, can say whatever they want, but do it in a right place and in a right time...
Celdran... he did it in a wrong place and a wrong time... he must face the cosequences of his stupidity...
-
baka naman nadala lang siya sa usapan. from his example in his original post, he gave examples with regards to religion and we are in the Religion section. i think what he means is absolute free speech towards religion.
-
free speech towards religion you mean... you just enter someone's worship service and shout whatever you want...
malinaw ang sinabi ng Art. 133 "... in a place devoted to religious worship or during the celebration of any religious ceremony..." ginawa niya ang gusto niyang gawin sa lugar "devoted to religious worship" at merong nasaktan ang feelings... Celdran clearly violated the law... he did it in a place devoted to religoius worship na kung saan may mga taong nagtestify na nakasakit ng damdamin ang ginawa ni Celdran...
now if Celdran do it outside the vicinity of 'place devoted to religous worship'... hindi siya mapapatawan ng parusa ayon sa Article 133...
Celdran have all the freedom to express his free speech towards religion but he must do it in a proper place and proper time...
i believe Article 133 was created to protect people from stupid people like Celdran... that law created so that people can express their freedom of religion in their place of worship and particular time of worship free from hindrance or disturbance from people like Celdran...
just imagine if Celdran can get away with his idiotic moves... maraming gagaya anyone can just go to any place of worship or celebration and stage a protest disrupting the sacredness and peacefullnes of the event... and he will just invoke his right to freedom of speech towards religion @%@$^#^#$%$@#%$
-
I'm actually on the fence with celdran's antics inside the church. It is a private property after all.
-
baka naman nadala lang siya sa usapan. from his example in his original post, he gave examples with regards to religion and we are in the Religion section. i think what he means is absolute free speech towards religion.
Well si Klaus na rin naman ang nagbring up ng topics other than religion like free speech sa books, works of art, films, government/govt officials, journalists...
Even dun from the same original post you're referring to, hindi naman talaga exclusive sa religion. But including religion lang.
Of course, it comes to no surprise that I think they should not exist. No one should HAVE to fear imprisonment if they criticize, mock or ridicule any idea or any person up to and including religion and God especially not in a democracy that guarantees freedom of speech.
-
yun lang dun ako di agree regarding ridiculing a person. i'm for ridiculing ideas, philosophy, religion, etc. but i draw the line when ridiculing a person. criticize, yes. ridicule, no.
-
Naalala ko nung high school, yung simplified na pag-explain ng pag establish ng government, is the people giving up some of their freedoms in exchange for security, peace and order, etc. Freedoms can lead to abuse, and may limitations yan lagi, i.e. you should respect the rights of others in the exercise of your freedoms.
Sa case ni Celdran, I am pro-RH, pero di ako agree sa ginawa niya. Yes, he can always argue about his right to free speech, pero what of the rights of those in the Church to gather and express their religious beliefs?
Respect is a too way street, i.e. I will respect your beliefs as long as you respect mine, 'ika nga.
-
Respect is a too way street, i.e. I will respect your beliefs as long as you respect mine, 'ika nga.
Agree!
-
Idiots. (https://ph.news.yahoo.com/muslims-philippines-march-against-charlie-hebdo-141708887.html)
-
Idiots. (https://ph.news.yahoo.com/muslims-philippines-march-against-charlie-hebdo-141708887.html)
Idiots? Isn't this exactly the kind of absolute freedom of speech you vehemently defend?
-
i'd rather that they start marching, shouting indignation than start shooting....
-
Idiots. (https://ph.news.yahoo.com/muslims-philippines-march-against-charlie-hebdo-141708887.html)
And you said you'd defend to the death their right to express themselves? tsk tsk
-
Idiots? Isn't this exactly the kind of absolute freedom of speech you vehemently defend?
Yes, and I'm using MY freedom of speech to say that they're idiots.
"Freedom of speech" does not mean freedom from criticism or mockery. I disagree with them. They're entitled to their opinions. I have every right to say that their opinions are idiotic. If I say that they should be shot or imprisoned for saying that, then yes, you have a point but I didn't. I just said I think they're idiots. THEY, on the other hand, seem to want imprisonment and even death for people who blaspheme.
-
Yes, and I'm using MY freedom of speech to say that they're idiots.
"Freedom of speech" does not mean freedom from criticism or mockery. I disagree with them. They're entitled to their opinions. I have every right to say that their opinions are idiotic. If I say that they should be shot or imprisoned for saying that, then yes, you have a point but I didn't. I just said I think they're idiots. THEY, on the other hand, seem to want imprisonment and even death for people who blaspheme.
So in essence you believe people who practice what you are preaching and defending are idiots. Of course freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism or mockery. But it is hypocritical calling them idiots for simply exercising their freedom of speech which you so passionately contend.
-
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/paris-magazine-attack/pope-francis-freedom-speech-one-cannot-make-fun-faith-n286631
Pope Francis on Freedom of Speech: 'One Cannot Make Fun of Faith'
Well said,...
-
So in essence you believe people who practice what you are preaching and defending are idiots. Of course freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism or mockery. But it is hypocritical calling them idiots for simply exercising their freedom of speech which you so passionately contend.
I'm calling them idiots for what they said. Not for the fact that they're exercising their freedom of speech. The difference is that if I make fun of Mohammed, a lot of them will want me to get shot or imprisoned. That's wrong. For me, no matter how much I disagree or find your opinions or views offensive or abhorrent, I'd never wish you death or prison. I'd mock you, criticize you, make fun of you, call you an idiot, etc. But I'd never wish you death or prison or demand the government throw you in jail and execute you.
And Pope Francis is wrong.
Yes, people SHOULD have the freedom to exercise their faith in peace but people who don't share that faith have an equal right to mock that faith without getting killed or thrown in jail.
-
pakiramdam ko na abuse ako noong bata pa ako... :):):)
-
I'm calling them idiots for what they said. Not for the fact that they're exercising their freedom of speech. The difference is that if I make fun of Mohammed, a lot of them will want me to get shot or imprisoned. That's wrong. For me, no matter how much I disagree or find your opinions or views offensive or abhorrent, I'd never wish you death or prison. I'd mock you, criticize you, make fun of you, call you an idiot, etc. But I'd never wish you death or prison or demand the government throw you in jail and execute you.
And Pope Francis is wrong.
Yes, people SHOULD have the freedom to exercise their faith in peace but people who don't share that faith have an equal right to mock that faith without getting killed or thrown in jail.
I completely agree. According to the bible Christ teaches christians to LOVE their enemies. The pope doesn't think that way. So who's side is he?
-
if i call homosexual idiot will you let me go to jail? if i mock homosexual will you let me go to jail?
-
if i call homosexual idiot will you let me go to jail? if i mock homosexual will you let me go to jail?
No.
If you beat up or harass a homosexual, yes. If your business discriminates against homosexuals, I will personally lead the campaign (using MY freedom of expression) to have customers boycott your business until you close down OR you stop discriminating against homosexuals. Now before you say I'm violating your freedom of expression, I am not. We are simply presenting/expressing both our opinions/ideas. Letting BOTH our voices be heard and allowing the public at large to decide. THAT'S the essence of free speech.
But I will not be gunning you down or having thrown in jail.
-
so... ang ginawa ba ni Celdran justified or not?
-
I'm calling them idiots for what they said. Not for the fact that they're exercising their freedom of speech. The difference is that if I make fun of Mohammed, a lot of them will want me to get shot or imprisoned. That's wrong. For me, no matter how much I disagree or find your opinions or views offensive or abhorrent, I'd never wish you death or prison. I'd mock you, criticize you, make fun of you, call you an idiot, etc. But I'd never wish you death or prison or demand the government throw you in jail and execute you.
And Pope Francis is wrong.
Yes, people SHOULD have the freedom to exercise their faith in peace but people who don't share that faith have an equal right to mock that faith without getting killed or thrown in jail.
So what did they say? I seem to get the impression you are generalizing the radical views of those who carried out the attacks as the way of life for those who practice that religion as a whole. In the article you posted, were those Filipinos who were rallying wish people death? Were they encouraging people to bear arms and kill people if their religion is mocked or ridiculed? I saw several interviews from CNN that as a whole, Muslims abhor the attacks.
-
tsk tsk tsk.......calling the pope an idiot for he has a different view with regards to faith and religion...... i think its futile for everyone to continue the discussion since the OP will not show respect to someone whose stand is in direct contrast of what he believes in....
if the majority on their community has this same approach on dealing with people, then it myt take an evolution process for them to be accepted normally. hayyy anarchaic behavior!!
-
and will take revenge just like of those radicals but in the form of taking down your business...
and willing to destroy and cause disturbance to the peace and sanctity and sacredness of any worship service...
-
Following the Pope's example where you say he is wrong...... if someone says your mother is an idiot for raising a son like you whose disregard even for her own religion simply reflects the kind of mother she is.... you would be ok with that?
-
siguro normal na sa hapag kainan nila ang usapang ganito:
Mommy: "Klaus, ano tingin mo kay Pope"
Klaus: "Mommy, your Pope is an idiot and you're an idiot for following that idiot and religion."
-
there is only one idiot in this thread.... >:D >:D >:D
because it takes one to know one.... >:D >:D >:D
-
Pope is wrong? and who's right? tsk tsk don't like to read things like this
-
pakiramdam ko na abuse ako noong bata pa ako... :):):)
Bukod diyan, feeling ko KULANG KA SA PAGMAMAHAL nung maliit ka pa. WALANG pumapansin sa iyo. Baka hindi ka nakatikim ng LOVING HUGS & KISSES nung maliit ka dpogs.
-
Pope is wrong? and who's right? tsk tsk don't like to read things like this
Popes can be wrong. Religious beliefs should NOT be off-limits to criticism and mockery. In saying so, he is almost justifying the Charlie Hebdo massacre.
-
imo, pope francis is on the spot, there should be limitations to expression or else gyera ang labas niyan. Provocation creates tension and the other party may react variably depending on how they view it. So kung meek as a lamb ka, NR pero kung extremist ka, patayan na. We are all made to be different, with different views and different reactions.
-
Given this example... "It's true that we can't react violently, but, for example if Dr. Gasbarri here, a great friend of mine, says a curse word against my mother, then a punch awaits him," dba parang malinaw naman ang message that the Pope is trying to deliver?
I've been browsing the religion thread for quite sometime now. Observation ko lang is yung mga tao na walang pinaniniwalaan or yung mga mas "open-minded" mas hirap tanggapin yung paniniwala ng iba.
-
when you mock a religious person - its freedom of speech
when you mock a homosexual - its bigotry, its discrimination, its bullying :)
when you disagree to the idea of religions - its wisdom, matalino ka and civilized and intiligent
when you disagree to the idea of homosexuality - you're an idiot, uncivilized and ignorant
when you stage a protest inside worship place - freedom of speech and expression
when you stage a protest during pride/gay day - you're homophobic, hater etc...
grabe ang pag-abuso sa salitang "freedom of speech" ... as long as it will serve their own agenda they will always cry for "freedom of speech and expression"...
-
People use freedom of speech as an excuse to mock, criticize or insult. The problem with this world is intolerance. Just because your belief systems are different doesn't give you the right to mock/criticize/insult those who think otherwise.
I'm sick and tired of people who are saying that religion is the cause of the world's problems. It goes beyond that, as this world will be a much more peaceful world if we can accept that the opinion of others may be different from ours.
You wish to sway the opinion of others? Fine. But try to convince them without disrespecting their current set of beliefs, please.
-
Also ok lang sana that you have your own views and disagree about other people's belief. I would respect that. But you would use mockery and ridicule to disrespect that religion...... But then nagsisimba ka pa rin naman kada linggo kasama parents mo right Klaus?
-
And we wonder why walang WORLD PEACE,..? ;D
-
NR pero kung extremist ka, patayan na. We are all made to be different, with different views and different reactions.
The problem lies with the extremists, not the critics. Jesus is mocked on a regular basis in South Park and Family Guy. Hell, in the Broadway show The Book of Mormon, there's an ENTIRE song about saying F-you to God. But no one has shot Seth MacFarlane, Trey Parker or Matt Stone (all either atheists or agnostics). I don't think anyone here would advocate that.
If you're offended by something, you counter it by expressing yourself through peaceful means, not through violence.
-
you can not say that to everybody
-
that's what you get for watching too many movies. you try to absorb too many ideals that you've forgotten your own.
-
The problem lies with the extremists, not the critics. Jesus is mocked on a regular basis in South Park and Family Guy. Hell, in the Broadway show The Book of Mormon, there's an ENTIRE song about saying F-you to God. But no one has shot Seth MacFarlane, Trey Parker or Matt Stone (all either atheists or agnostics). I don't think anyone here would advocate that.
If you're offended by something, you counter it by expressing yourself through peaceful means, not through violence.
Advocate? Of course not. Pero pag may nangyari sa kanila I would just take it na consequence yun ng actions nila.
Diff bet the Celdran incident and things you mentioned, I can always turn off the TV/radio or change channels if I dont like what's on. Si Celdran tried to force presenting his ideas when he made that protest sa church.
Again to quote the Pope... "It's true that we can't react violently, but, for example if Dr. Gasbarri here, a great friend of mine, says a curse word against my mother, then a punch awaits him,"
-
that's what you get for watching too many movies. you try to absorb too many ideals that you've forgotten your own.
What do you know about my "ideals"? You don't know me. Much of what I say do not come from movies but rather by reading books and listening to my professors in college.
-
Bukod diyan, feeling ko KULANG KA SA PAGMAMAHAL nung maliit ka pa. WALANG pumapansin sa iyo. Baka hindi ka nakatikim ng LOVING HUGS & KISSES nung maliit ka dpogs.
hmmm... much more "i feel violated during my younger years"...
kaya humanda ang mga umabuso sa akin at nagviolate ng mura kong pag-iisp... nasa akin ang huling halakhak... ipapamukha ko sa kanila ang aking galit... ipapamukha ko sa kanila ang kawalanghiyaang ginawa nila sa akin... ipapamukha ko sa kanila na ang mga ginagawa nila ay mali ....
-
when you mock a religious person - its freedom of speech
when you mock a homosexual - its bigotry, its discrimination, its bullying :)
when you disagree to the idea of religions - its wisdom, matalino ka and civilized and intiligent
when you disagree to the idea of homosexuality - you're an idiot, uncivilized and ignorant
Masyado na ang pang-aapi ng mga yan sa atin. Here's a classic example:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/petitions/reinstate-kelvin-cochran
Gusto nila sila lang ang may karapatan. Tayong Hindi lgbt, tinatanggal sa trabaho. Masyado na tayong inaapi. Dapat di tayo pumapayag ng ginaganito tayo.
-
at merong pang pagbabanta... ang sinuman na hindi sang ayon sa ideals ng lgbt... they will threaten you and your company to close down seems simliar sa ginawa nila para lang mawala sa list ng mga mental disorder ang homosexuality - harassment... tsk...
freedom of speech ... freedom of expression... may mga tao talanga mahilig umabuso... may mga tao talagang sobra ang pagka rebelde in nature...
-
hmmm... much more "i feel violated during my younger years"...
kaya humanda ang mga umabuso sa akin at nagviolate ng mura kong pag-iisp... nasa akin ang huling halakhak... ipapamukha ko sa kanila ang aking galit... ipapamukha ko sa kanila ang kawalanghiyaang ginawa nila sa akin... ipapamukha ko sa kanila na ang mga ginagawa nila ay mali ....
Sir pupulutin sila sa kangkungan ulit,..?
-
Sir pupulutin sila sa kangkungan ulit,..?
nooo... i am a peace loving member of society...
i'll just call them idiots, ignorant, bigots.. then i will mock their gods, call their leader and members an idiot, will protest inside their church at sisihin ko ang simbahan sa lahat na mali na nangyayari sa bansa... and then wrs case scenario... call the attention of all people who shares my idea to boycott their products/business etc...
:):):)
-
Gusto nila sila lang ang may karapatan. Tayong Hindi lgbt, tinatanggal sa trabaho. Masyado na tayong inaapi. Dapat di tayo pumapayag ng ginaganito tayo.
A lot of Christians have persecution complex. How many LGBT's have been killed, bullied, kicked out of their houses and been discriminated against because of being LGBT? Getting criticism or paying the consequences (which is nowhere NEAR the level of the persecution Christians have inflicted on the LGBT's) for discriminating against gays, iyak na kaagad kayo.
(http://oi57.tinypic.com/2wei104.jpg)
-
paghihiganti - main objective
they're not looking for equality... they want revenge actually...
so... they will use all means to advance their agenda... pati freedom of speech and expression gagamitin ng mga 'radical' na ito... hindi para sa pakinabang ng nakakarami kungdi para sa pansarili nilang interes...
walang pinagkaiba sa mga radical extremist believer ng mga religion... gagawin ang lahat maisulong lang ang kanilang paniniwala...
-
Nice read first thing in the morning drinking coffee sitting on my chair facing my workstation.
Clearly, somebody must me fun at parties.
-
A lot of Christians have persecution complex. How many LGBT's have been killed, bullied, kicked out of their houses and been discriminated against because of being LGBT? Getting criticism or paying the consequences (which is nowhere NEAR the level of the persecution Christians have inflicted on the LGBT's) for discriminating against gays, iyak na kaagad kayo.
Look who's talking now. ;)
let's try to rephrase your statement for you to read:
A lot of LGBTs have persecution complex. How many people have been killed, bullied, kicked out of their houses and been discriminated w/o any reason? Getting criticism or paying the consequences (which is nowhere NEAR the level of the persecution LGBT's have inflicted on the other people) for discriminating against personal beliefs, iyak na kaagad kayo.
-
Nice read first thing in the morning drinking coffee sitting on my chair facing my workstation.
Clearly, somebody must me fun at parties.
Ako din, i'm having my coffee and toasted bread.
-
So tutoo nga,..! If you are not with me, you are against me,...
-
Following the Pope's example where you say he is wrong...... if someone says your mother is an idiot for raising a son like you whose disregard even for her own religion simply reflects the kind of mother she is.... you would be ok with that?
No, I wouldn't be okay with that, but I don't know about you, but the thought of killing the person who says that will never enter my head.. I could ignore him or curse him out or yell at him but killing? I think not.
I think a lot of posters here are either deliberately misconstruing my words, twisting it out around, playing dumb or don't read what I write. I never said that people should be okay with people verbally abusing them, I never said people should be okay if they felt offended or insulted by someone. I never said that. All I said was: Free speech should NEVER be legally curtailed and killing/violence is never justified for any reason whatsoever.
I say the Pope is wrong because once you start saying things like "well, you shouldn't insult a person's faith, etc." that sort of gives the murderers a justification for their actions. Yes, I know that may not be his intention but it's sort of like saying it's the rape victim's fault for getting raped because she wore something provocative.
I'm also not saying if you are offended or were insulted by someone, that you should just shut up and grin and bear it. By all means, write angry letters, organize protests and boycotts, write something insulting back, ask their boss to fire them, sue them etc. Because that's YOUR right to free expression. What I object to is demanding that the government close down the publication/banning it/censoring it, imprisoning the people involved and of course MURDERING them. To me, that is where I draw the line.
-
No, I wouldn't be okay with that, but I don't know about you, but the thought of killing the person who says that will never enter my head.. I could ignore him or curse him out or yell at him but killing? I think not.
I think a lot of posters here are either deliberately misconstruing my words, twisting it out around, playing dumb or don't read what I write. I never said that people should be okay with people verbally abusing them, I never said people should be okay if they felt offended or insulted by someone. I never said that. All I said was: Free speech should NEVER be legally curtailed and killing/violence is never justified for any reason whatsoever.
I say the Pope is wrong because once you start saying things like "well, you shouldn't insult a person's faith, etc." that sort of gives the murderers a justification for their actions. Yes, I know that may not be his intention but it's sort of like saying it's the rape victim's fault for getting raped because she wore something provocative.
I'm also not saying if you are offended or were insulted by someone, that you should just shut up and grin and bear it. By all means, write angry letters, organize protests and boycotts, write something insulting back, ask their boss to fire them, sue them etc. Because that's YOUR right to free expression. What I object to is demanding that the government close down the publication/banning it/censoring it, imprisoning the people involved and of course MURDERING them. To me, that is where I draw the line.
So you can freely mock and ridicule a LGBT and if he/she consequently commits suicide, then that's ok. Because you were just expressing your absolute free speech to mock and ridicule? This happens in real life and several cases were posted by you. Oh by the way, the Filipino Muslims you called idiots in the link you posted did just what you suggested..... they "organize protests and boycotts". But you still call them idiots right?
-
So you can freely mock and ridicule a LGBT and if he/she consequently commits suicide, then that's ok. Because you were just expressing your absolute free speech to mock and ridicule? This happens in real life and several cases were posted by you. Oh by the way, the Filipino Muslims you called idiots in the link you posted did just what you suggested..... they "organize protests and boycotts". But you still call them idiots right?
You don't seem to be reading what I write nor even COMPREHENDING what I write. I can't help you anymore. Perhaps you should brush up on your reading comprehension. Either that or you ARE being deliberately obtuse and dense just to troll me.
-
You don't seem to be reading what I write nor even COMPREHENDING what I write. I can't help you anymore. Perhaps you should brush up on your reading comprehension. Either that or you ARE being deliberately obtuse and dense just to troll me.
My reading comprehension is fine thank you. Perhaps you should just simply answer the question point blank. It is not my comprehension that is the problem. But you obviously skirting around the issue at hand. The post is very direct and concise without mockery or ridicule. Can't say the same about your reply. The question also falls within the parameters you yourself set.
Why is it people typically resort to insult when they can't answer the question? Anyway, see you at Sunday mass with your parents.
-
dahil sa hirap na dinanas ko nang maliit pa ako at sa mga nagbully sa akin... gusto kong gantihan ang mga hindi sang-ayon sa aking pananaw...
dahil sa minolestiya ako ng religion na nakilala ko nang maliit pa ako... i will mock them and ridicule them when i grow up...
>:( >:( >:(
-
My reading comprehension is fine thank you. Perhaps you should just simply answer the question point blank. It is not my comprehension that is the problem. But you obviously skirting around the issue at hand. The post is very direct and concise without mockery or ridicule. Can't say the same about your reply. The question also falls within the parameters you yourself set.
Once more:
I never said it was always okay to mock or ridicule anyone. I never said that people just be grin and bear it when they get insulted or offended. I never said that we shouldn't be responsible for our words. My only words are: It's never okay to murder someone for saying something you find offensive and it's never for the GOVERNMENT to step in and try to curb freedom of expression and freedom of speech whether it's by censorship, imprisonment or killing people.
That does not mean to say I don't think people should be responsible or be held responsible for abuse of free speech. They should be. BUT THAT'S NOT GOVERNMENT'S JOB TO REGULATE THAT. In order for society and democracy to be truly free, freedom of speech should be absolute, free from any government interference. And when I say that, I don't mean to say people should say anything they want without consequences and people shouldn't have to be responsible. NO, THAT'S NOT WHAT I MEANT. It's to private individuals to regulate the parameters of their freedom of speech and to call out others on what they see as their own abuse of freedom of speech.
Am I making myself clear now?
-
Then let me quote the very words you used on your post.
Once more:
I never said it was always okay to mock or ridicule anyone.
What is "rude" and what is "decent" is very subjective.
Can it go too far? Sure.
Like you said, what is rude and what is decent is subjective. If you have absolute free speech, for some it is okay to always mock or ridicule someone. They may not know where to draw the line and ceratinly it will go too far.
I never said that people just be grin and bear it when they get insulted or offended.
I'm talking about a different matter. Each person reacts differently when ridiculed or mocked. Some resort to insult. Some to violence. Some ignore it. And some resort to taking one's life. I'm talking about the latter.
I never said that we shouldn't be responsible for our words. My only words are: It's never okay to murder someone for saying something you find offensive and it's never for the GOVERNMENT to step in and try to curb freedom of expression and freedom of speech whether it's by censorship, imprisonment or killing people.
That does not mean to say I don't think people should be responsible or be held responsible for abuse of free speech. They should be. BUT THAT'S NOT GOVERNMENT'S JOB TO REGULATE THAT. In order for society and democracy to be truly free, freedom of speech should be absolute, free from any government interference. And when I say that, I don't mean to say people should say anything they want without consequences and people shouldn't have to be responsible. NO, THAT'S NOT WHAT I MEANT. It's to private individuals to regulate the parameters of their freedom of speech and to call out others on what they see as their own abuse of freedom of speech.
Am I making myself clear now?
Well then that contradicts your earlier posts....
You say, "Well, there should be limits". I would argue, no there shouldn't be limits. As long as you're not hurting anyone, damaging other people's property or encroaching on other people's civil liberties, you should be free to express anything you like, no matter how offensive.
Well those criteria you mentioned allows ridiculing and mocking LGBT as ok even if in some cases, they resort to committing suicide.
1. Mocking and ridiculing LGBT are not hurting anyone.
2. Mocking and ridiculing LGBT are not damaging other people's property
3. Mocking and ridiculing LGBT are not encroaching on other people's civil liberties
Am I making myself clear now?
No....you muddled it even more because of contradictory posts. ;D
-
sabi senyo mga bossing incurable na ito eh. hopeless case ika nga. isispin mong mang degrade ka ng tao pero ayaw nilang masaktan o ma threat ang buhay nila. pero pag sila ang na degrade mo verbally, ipapaboycott yung hanapbuhay mo o kya papaalisan ka ng trabaho. eh di ba indirectly your killing the person too, tinatangalan mo ng kabuhayan yung isang tao eh, eh di para mo na din syang pinapatay! susmayosep!!!
pag sila naman ang ginawan mo ng pangiipit sa kanilang kabuhayan dahil sa kanilang verbal tirade, sisigaw naman sila ng persecusion!!!
ours is a simple case of damn if you do, damn if you dont! were screwed either way! >:(
mas malinaw pa ang kape ng starbuck..........
-
they will do it peacefully naman daw...
they will peacefully make your life/business miserable...
-
How about this one?
http://www.pep.ph/news/47577/marlene-aguilar-attacks-pope-francis-in-facebook-posts-netizens-react
-
How about this one?
http://www.pep.ph/news/47577/marlene-aguilar-attacks-pope-francis-in-facebook-posts-netizens-react
oo nga sir, grabe! natawa lang ako sa isang comment calling his son(jason ivler) a murderer. nagrply ba naman si marlene ng i will sue you for calling my son a murderer! hahahahaha napikon!!
-
I am marlene aguilar
I can say what I want to say about your pope
But I WILL SUE YOU if you call my son a MURDERER!
Yes to freedom of speech! Yes to blasphemy
But don't insult my son!
(Katol pa, teh!) ;D ::) :o
-
Magandang example yan.
Pag sinabi mo sa Facebook na "kampon ng dilim" si Pope, that is not a violation of Art. 133 of the Revised Penal Code, freedom of speech yon.
Yung ginawa ni Celdran, violation of Art. 133 yon. Ano difference?
Art. 133. Offending the religious feelings. — The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon anyone who, in a place devoted to religious worship or during the celebration of any religious ceremony shall perform acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful.
Note the phrase, "in a place devoted to religious worship or during the celebration of any religious ceremony." Big difference.
-
If we aren't aiming to build people up and just wanna spout hatred, let's use another right. The right to remain silent.
Just because we can eat a shoe doesn't mean we should.
Everything is permissible but not everything is beneficial.
-
for them - freethinkers kuno - absolutue freedom of speech/expression is beneficial para sa kanilang self-interest... magawa lang ang gusto nilang gawin kahit hindi naman kailangan...
-
If we aren't aiming to build people up and just wanna spout hatred, let's use another right. The right to remain silent.
Just because we can eat a shoe doesn't mean we should.
Everything is permissible but not everything is beneficial.
The thing about "rights" is that you can CHOOSE to exercise them or not. I'm not disagreeing with you. My quibble of course is that free speech should NOT be curbed by government period. Free speech should be self-regulated by individuals and communities without government interference or any criminal liability within reason. This is to guarantee you will have no fear of being fined, imprisoned or even killed if write or say something radical or unfavorable to the government.
Can anyone cite me a past case in history where censorship of a work of art or the killing of a writer or someone who says offensive things turned out to be the right thing to do and society was all the better for it?
-
for them - freethinkers kuno - absolutue freedom of speech/expression is beneficial para sa kanilang self-interest... magawa lang ang gusto nilang gawin kahit hindi naman kailangan...
;D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filipino_Freethinkers
http://filipinofreethinkers.org
"...positions regarding truth should be formed on the basis of logic, reason, and empiricism, rather than authority, tradition, or other dogmas..."
Sali na!
-
Ah so self-regulation lang. Meaning kanya-kanyang definition of what line not to cross. But if somebody crosses that line, pasensyahan na lang. :D
-
With the recent conviction of Carlos Celdran and the shooting of cartoonists in the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, I would like to ask the board, where do they stand on blasphemy laws and whether or not they should exist in a free and democratic country that guarantees free speech.
Of course, it comes to no surprise that I think they should not exist. No one should HAVE to fear imprisonment if they criticize, mock or ridicule any idea or any person up to and including religion and God especially not in a democracy that guarantees freedom of speech.
I dunno if its been mentioned, but what Carlos did was very different from the Charlie Hebdo cartoons if we are talking about disrupting a Mass with a placard. Medyo bastos nga and the priests have the right na magdemanda.
ngayon sir may morals ka na! saan nakabase yung morals mo sir?
how about having sex sith the same gender? iis it morally right for you to do it?
how about the mocking someone's religious belief? is it morally right for you to do it?
how about calling other people idiot if their opinion is not in parallel with yours? is it morally right for you to do it?
you've just made my day :D :D :D
Nalimutan mo Incest (http://www.pinoydvd.com/index.php/topic,176476.0.html). (adults consenting (with contraception))
but that's another story.
-
Ah so self-regulation lang. Meaning kanya-kanyang definition of what line not to cross. But if somebody crosses that line, pasensyahan na lang. :D
Magandang punto yan sir.
During the gathering for the papal mass, 3 people were arrested for joking about possessing a bomb and 2 guns.
Violation of PD 1727, or freedom of speech?
Siyempre pag tinanong mo yung tatlong engot, sasabihin nila freedom of speech yon... :D
Philippine police arrest three for bomb joke during papal mass
By Afp Published: 06:54 GMT, 20 January 2015
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/afp/article-2917847/Philippine-police-arrest-three-bomb-joke-papal-mass.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/afp/article-2917847/Philippine-police-arrest-three-bomb-joke-papal-mass.html)
Freedom of speech is actually a complicated constitutional law topic. Hindi basta absolute free speech lang, ok na.
-
Magandang punto yan sir.
During the gathering for the papal mass, 3 people were arrested for joking about possessing a bomb and 2 guns.
Violation of PD 1727, or freedom of speech?
Siyempre pag tinanong mo yung tatlong engot, sasabihin nila freedom of speech yon... :D
Philippine police arrest three for bomb joke during papal mass
By Afp Published: 06:54 GMT, 20 January 2015
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/afp/article-2917847/Philippine-police-arrest-three-bomb-joke-papal-mass.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/afp/article-2917847/Philippine-police-arrest-three-bomb-joke-papal-mass.html)
Akala ni sir Klaus absolute free speech lang ok na. Freedom of speech is actually a complicated constitutional law topic.
Magandang link yan Atty. So if I understabnd Klaus' point of contention, dapat hindi sila parusahan ng batas. Self-regulation lang. Para dun sa tatlo kasi biro biro lang yun. Para sa iba naman, crossing the line na yan. Since dapat without government interference.... eh pasensyahan na lang lalo na if nagkapanic at stampede sa Luneta Grandstand. ;D
-
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/10926431_10152632761907686_7619770239800775335_n.jpg?oh=c2177c3b6b61891064dcdf8d0f6df4b3&oe=55283493&__gda__=1428850924_c835999997a108d0d011a68c2387266f)
-
Here's a great article. (http://www.rappler.com/thought-leaders/81956-right-to-offend-pope-francis-charlie-hebdo)
-
Here's a great article. (http://www.rappler.com/thought-leaders/81956-right-to-offend-pope-francis-charlie-hebdo)
what's great in something that says that insult and mockery are okay?
-
what's great in something that says that insult and mockery are okay?
if you're homosexual then it is okay to insult and mock anyone, you're just expressing yourself and exercising free speech...
but if you're heterosexual and you insult and mock a homosexual then it is not okay anymore, its discrimination and bullying...
:):):)
:):):)
-
what's great in something that says that insult and mockery are okay?
Didn't you read the article? It says insults and mockery are not okay but that people shouldn't kill or imprison anyone because of it.
Do you think a public official is justified in killing/imprisoning a journalist if he or she writes an article that is critical of him? That is the result of what will happen if we start to try and define what is "offensive" and "insulting" because it's subjective. That public official will find that article offensive and insulting so by you're okay with him imprisoning the reporter?
For me, having to deal with vulgar, offensive non-sense is a small price to pay to prevent that from ever happening.
-
Ah so self-regulation lang. Meaning kanya-kanyang definition of what line not to cross. But if somebody crosses that line, pasensyahan na lang. :D
This is what happened to Charlie. They crossed the line of the Islamic radicals..
-
Klaus Weasley
Trade Count: (+15)
PinoyDVD Legend
Posts: 4,188
Re: Willie Revillame: WHY???
« Reply #721 on: May 30, 2013 at 10:15 PM »
Quote
Quote from: anya618 on May 30, 2013 at 07:15 PM
Willie charged with child abuse over ‘dancing boy’
Good.
Filipinos have a strange, borderline offensive sense of humor. Our humor is almost free of sarcasm, irony and wit. It is instead filled with corniness if not corny, overly vulgar/offensive.
pag si wiiie pwedeng idemanda kse offensive yung ginawa nya, akala nya siguro madaming matutuwa! and this is just a nasty humor, not comparable sa attacks on morality and your own religious view na mas maselang issue. and yet you think that filing a case was a good move.... pero pag ikaw ang gagawa ng offensive ,vulgar tirade hindi ka pwedeng idemanda! ano yon selective justice? pag ibang tao, okay kyo, pag kayo na, hindi pwede! susmayosep!
-
pag si wiiie pwedeng idemanda kse offensive yung ginawa nya, akala nya siguro madaming matutuwa! and this is just a nasty humor, not comparable sa attacks on morality and your own religious view na mas maselang issue. and yet you think that filing a case was a good move.... pero pag ikaw ang gagawa ng offensive ,vulgar tirade hindi ka pwedeng idemanda! ano yon selective justice? pag ibang tao, okay kyo, pag kayo na, hindi pwede! susmayosep!
What he did traumatized a child. I support filing a CIVIL suit against him. Willie Revillame is an embarrassing, vulgar, reprehensible human being but I don't support killing or imprisoning him.
-
insulting and mocking a homosexual then is okay to you?
are you saying that any person can mock and insult a homosexual without worrying na baka makulong siya o mapatay siya?
-
What he did traumatized a child. I support filing a CIVIL suit against him. Willie Revillame is an embarrassing, vulgar, reprehensible human being but I don't support killing or imprisoning him.
so pabor ka sa restriction for those vulgar and embarassing people! pero pag kyo na ang gumagawa ng embarassment dapat walang restriction. and you dont find yourself offensive, vulgar and embarrasing even lots of people think otherwise. so kung si willie gusto nyo may restriction dahil vulgar, kme gusto din namin may restriction kayo kse vulgar din kayo at embarassing! your in the same boat my dear!
-
This thread feels eerily similar to the "legalization of marijuana" thread.
-
i agree that we must exercise freedom of speech and as long as it is not against our constitution then no one should be imprisoned...
but
i beleve that there is a limit on how, when or where we exercise our freedom of speech... in order to maintain/promote peace and harmony with each other...
i have the right to mock and insult anyone but i choose not to do so since it will just promote violence, anger, discomfort and likes...
i believe that those who promote "absolute" freedom of speech is a total idiot (original: a$shole)...
-
insulting and mocking a homosexual then is okay to you?
are you saying that any person can mock and insult a homosexual without worrying na baka makulong siya o mapatay siya?
No, it is NOT okay by me.
JUST BECAUSE I DON'T SUPPORT YOU GETTING IMPRISONED OR KILLED FOR IT, IT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S OKAY. CAN YOU READ? CAN YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?[/u][/i]
When I say absolute freedom of speech, I mean absolute freedom from getting killed or getting imprisoned. Not absolute freedom from consequences and responsibility. If you say "F-you" to your boss, he has every right to fire you but he has no right to kill or imprison you.
i have the right to mock and insult anyone but i choose not to do so since it will just promote violence, anger, discomfort and likes...
Yes, you are correct. But the key word here is "CHOOSE". YOU choose. NOT the government. It's not the government's job to police what is offensive and what is not.
Your right to insult and mock anyone without fear of death or prison is the same right that protects the journalist who will write a critical article about a corrupt government official or the scientist and philosopher who has a new radical and progressive idea that could change the world that other people might be uncomfortable with.
-
Just as a show of support, go Klaus Weasley! :D Fight the good fight :)
-
Your right to insult and mock anyone without fear of death or prison is the same right that protects the journalist who will write a critical article about a corrupt government official or the scientist and philosopher who has a new radical and progressive idea that could change the world that other people might be uncomfortable with.
criticism is different from insult or mockery.
-
criticism is different from insult or mockery.
Maraming Pinoy balat-sibuyas, they wouldn't know the difference. They will take offense to any criticism whatsoever and read it as personal insults. Why do you think marami ang napapatay na journalists dito?
That's why when the government decides to crack down on trying to define what is "insulting" and "offensive", it's a slippery slope because it becomes subjective.
Will I like it someone mocks me, insults my mother or craps on my beliefs? No. But I wouldn't ask for the people who do that to be killed or go to jail. It doesn't mean that I'm okay with it. It means they have the right to say what they want to say. I can ignore them, insult them back or sue them. I do not have the right to kill them or ask the government to imprison them for offending me.
That for me is a small price to pay to live in a society where a journalist can write an article critical of the government freely or where a person can practice and express an unpopular religion or religious belief or where scientists/philosophers can express new/radical/progressive ideas that might be uncomfortable to deal with at first.
-
Speaking of free speech, this is an interesting conversation between a comedian and muslim ladies...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryYETmi9lNA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryYETmi9lNA)
-
Speaking of free speech, this is an interesting conversation between a comedian and muslim ladies...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryYETmi9lNA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryYETmi9lNA)
The comedian is 100% right.
-
I think the comedian's motto is "make a statement, life is short, make few people happy as insults are funny and make a lot of enemies because everything here's a joke"