Is there a Right to Offend?

The recent issue of tour guide and activist Carlos Celdran’s imprisonment raised discussions on “offense.” Some say the Catholic Church was onion-skinned and should not have taken offense at his action. Thus, Celdran’s supporters would say that the church was oppressive by using its power to imprison an opponent.

I-Am-OffendedSome also hit Article 133 of the Penal Code under which Celdran was cited, saying it is outdated and needless, and should be scrapped. Some have cried foul over it, calling it a tool for protecting the Church against any sort of criticism. But is it? My own pondering on the issue found otherwise.

Another question is, are Celdran, and other parties who are angry at the Church for its anti-RH stance, entitled to a purported “right to offend?”

Firstly, why would people so vehemently defend their “right” to offend? Because they enjoy another’s squirming when receiving an offense? Schadenfreude? That would be immature and uncivilized.

I believe there is no right to offend. Because “offend” in the law’s sense is having malice for or intention to harm someone. That is also why they call a violation of a law an “offense.” And ethics and wisdom dictate that if you have malice, or wish evil for someone, then you are one of the dregs of society. You are not “helping the Philippines,” which some critics of GRP accuse us of failing to do.

Some people say that offending someone or something is the only way to draw attention to a topic, or is the best thing you could to do to try and at least discomfit an “oppressor.”

But does it really help?

It likely does not. The Spinbusters article puts it nicely:

It doesn’t even matter that what Celdran disrupted was not a Mass. The same law applies in case Celdran summons the courage to invade the Quiapo Golden Mosque and call the ululating imams terrorists; or sneak inside the INC central spaceship, er, temple, and call the late Felix Manalo a rapist and a charlatan. There’s a reason Celdran’s offense is still in the statute books along with sundry crimes like slander and estafa.

What Celdran did was a publicity stunt, not an exercise of freedom of speech. He can’t badmouth the bishops in their own cathedral any more than we can show up unannounced at his dinner table and call him a retard and a hopeless reprobate. In the same vein, we can’t disrupt the editors of PDI in the middle of their story conference just to exercise our free speech and call them out for being jaundiced journalists.

The article also points out that the “People of the Republic of the Philippines” is the prosecuting party. The government is the one charging Celdran. Not the Church.

Loudly and intrusively offending and insulting people is a juvenile, primitive, usually unthinking and unnecessarily noisy action. It is not even freedom of expression, but rather an abuse of it, in my view. That is what Article 133 of the Penal Code may seek to impress on people. If you seek to actively offend people, you’re not helping. You’re only KSP (Kulang Sa Pansin).

But let’s look at the other side. Say, if someone is “offended” by, let’s say, your being dark-skinned, by you’re being a Goth, your being a lover of metal music or by any faculty of yours that is natural or is harmless to others? Sometimes there are people offended by you being yourself. Then it means the other party chose to be offended and is making a mountain out of a molehill. Let’s say, a person practices religion, but an atheist is offended by it. The atheist is the one who chose to see someone else’s practice as offensive and is actually offending themselves. The religious person never offended them (and the one who feels “insulted” is actually KSP). I agree that there are such situations.

But another rule actually operates in the case at hand: what you do defines what you are. If you offend others loudly, with the intention to destroy or humiliate based only on little or no evidence, what does that reflect about you? It may mean that you have no respect for the rights of others.

Article 133 and the part on libel exist in the Penal Code to remind people of their responsibilities on what they say and do to others. If you say something that may harm a person, even emotionally or mentally, then you should be held responsible for it. You can’t just get away with anything you say or do. You can’t go scot-free. Everything we do has consequences.

What if the defaming statement leads to a person losing their job or causing their family to leave them? And this happens even if the charge is proven false? Then the defamer has wrongly ruined a person’s life! That’s what anti-defamation laws are trying to prevent (With the DOJ now working on a new Criminal Code, I wonder how it will word the new anti-defamation provision, if there still will be any). Your “right to offend” ends when someone else’s security in life is compromised.

The problem with some “free speech” advocates is that they want to be able to insult or offend others without reaping the consequences. In other words, they want impunity (one of the parts of the great Filipino Cultural Trinity of dysfunctions). They want to escape responsibility, and want no punishment even if their words create unreasonable damage. If they say the person they defamed deserves the misfortune encountered through the defamation, then they prove to be no better than society’s “dregs.” This certainly adds to, rather than helps solve, the dysfunctions of our country.

If we criticize the government and others, we do so in our own space and without any need to invade anyone else’s privacy, or without destroying someone’s life or an institution’s reputation. Basically, the lesson here is, you may have the right intention, but the way you do it matters. The end does not justify the means.

print

About ChinoF

I stick with this blog because I believe, as my cohorts do, that many things Filipino embrace as part of their culture keep their society backward. And blogging freely to show that in a truly decent society, with true freedom of speech, even nobodies have a voice.

Post Author: ChinoF

I stick with this blog because I believe, as my cohorts do, that many things Filipino embrace as part of their culture keep their society backward. And blogging freely to show that in a truly decent society, with true freedom of speech, even nobodies have a voice.

Leave a Reply

50 Comments on "Is there a Right to Offend?"

avatar
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Gogs
Member

For those who claim GRP has gone to the well too much on this topic, one way to prevent this is to make sure everybody out there doesn’t miss the point. Sadly many do.

Johnny Saint
Guest

“The same law applies in case Celdran summons the courage to invade the Quiapo Golden Mosque and call the ululating imams terrorists”

Curiously, there are NO activists who have ever protested against the very real problems we have with Muslim extremism. Or the fact that there is a resurgence of fundamentalist, ultraconservative Wahhabi preaching in Southeast Asia. All promoted by Saudi sponsored madrasas.

Meanwhile, Celdran and his ilk are fixated on dressing up in ridiculous outfits and parading around like idiots. If the Salafists had their way, his tongue would have been cut out.

Andrew
Guest
Oh, all right, I’ll bite. I’m not missing the point; I hold, rather firmly, that the point you are making is wrong, and serves, in practice, to repress the majority of the people in the vested interest of the elite. You are, in fact, being reactionary. You have the right to be reactionary, but in doing so you may find that others find the system that you seek to uphold to be less than admirable. Celdran was obviously making a gesture; his gesture was an act of political activism, the argument being, I take it, that if the Church of… Read more »
LA702
Guest
So,GRP is not about to give up on this Celdran circus? Clearly to me, Celdran is a victim of an ancient law which in this day and age should not even be considered applicable. If I were Celdran, I would not even hear this stupid church instituted law. Offense against religious practice goes back to the ancient Sumerian civilization. It was instituted by the Sumerians as a way of conflict resolution and the law is at its heart “revenge”. This was the basic cultural mechanism for dealing with “unacceptable” behavior, to exact retribution. In this day and age, what Celdran… Read more »
Louie Reyes
Guest
“If we criticize the government and others, we do so in our own space and without any need to invade anyone else’s privacy, or without destroying someone’s life or an institution’s reputation. Basically, the lesson here is, you may have the right intention, but the way you do it matters. The end does not justify the means.” Or let’s put it this way: If we’re going to celebrate our religious beliefs, feast, rituals, dogmas etc. “we do so in our own space and without any need to invade anyone else’s privacy, or without destroying someone’s life or an institution’s reputation”… Read more »
Hep
Guest

We don’t have the right to offend. We also don’t have the right not to be offended.

Lord Chimera
Guest

While there is much to criticize about the Roman Catholic Celdarn’s action where too much. While one is able to criticize someone, one must respect the targets dignity. As a result Celdran was the one looking like a villain.

But I wonder about one thing why do people who criticize Christianity and Christians in general don’t have the guts to criticize religions that blatant flaws (Islam for example)? Maybe these people do like to pick on faiths that do not vindictive and painful retribution on those that offend it.

dan
Guest
just my 2 cents: may mga nagtatanong dito kung notoriously offensive ba yung ginawa ni celdran and what does “notoriously offensive” actually mean? tapos may magsasabi na “calling a priest a “Damaso” is not blasphemous – the accusation goes to the human character of the priest, not his religious character, and the Almighty may very well agree with the accusation, where it is justified. Is it “notoriously offensive” to call a priest a “Damaso”? Most people would say that it depends on the known character of the priest against whom the insult is hurled, surely?” notoriously offensive ba yung ginawa?… Read more »
nigy
Guest
“Ang taong hindi marunong gumalang sa nakakatanda ay higit pa sa malansang isda.” Strip away the biases and labels. What Damaso-guy did was wrong. Why? What monstrous evil did these elderly men do to deserve such public insult? For all we know, they have all good intentions to better our country and our people. They may be wrong; it might not be for our good. But their intentions are certainly not to harm us. … Tapos here come the lawyers who go all the way (even to argue until whatever Constitution, Article, Archaic blah-blah) to defend a guy who does… Read more »
Hyden Toro
Guest

This is a diversion attempt of Aquino….

Hyden Toro
Guest

Diversion tactic of Aquino. To get our attentions away from our dire economic issues…