Free speech and expression not real issue in Celdran case

The recent conviction of Carlos Celdran by the Metropolitan Trial Court for the crime of barging into a religious activity inside the Manila Cathedral has once again been distorted by Catholic-bashers as an issue against free speech and expression. Columnist Rina Jimenez-David’s question reeked with sarcasm: When religious sensibilities intersect with public speech and expression, where should the favor of the law fall (Inquirer, 1/30/13)? She deliberately chose to miss the real issue: The court convicted Celdran not for what he said but for what he did—which constituted a scandalous disruption of an ongoing religious activity inside a house of worship.

What he said was entirely irrelevant. He could have even shouted at the top of his lungs, “Long live Pope Benedict.”

But it was for the very act of disrupting the assembly that he is being held liable under our laws, regardless of the religious  sect he victimized. The utterance of his own views on any issue by all means was not criminal, and he could have well articulated them outside the Cathedral. It’s like attending a Supreme Court oral argument on cybercrime and a passionate audience starts shouting from the gallery his views against the law. He will be cited for direct contempt not for what he said but for what he did in disrupting the proceeding.

Thus a stubborn attempt to insist and inject the issue of free speech where there is clearly none, as in this case, is a malicious distortion of the truth and a great disservice to Inquirer readers.

—GEORGE C. DEE,

CFC-FFL Laguna,

geex26@yahoo.com