Free ***** Riot!

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Grunwalski, Aug 17, 2012.

  1. Grunwalski, Aug 17, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 21, 2012

    Grunwalski macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2012
    Location:
    UK
    #1
    Hi all,

    I am shocked at the news that the Russian Punk band '***** Riot' are to be sentenced to two years prison simply for singing a protest song about Putin.

    If you have not done so already could you please follow the link and sign the Amnesty International petition in support of the band.
     
  2. Kebabselector macrumors 68030

    Kebabselector

    Joined:
    May 25, 2007
    Location:
    Birmingham, UK
    #2
    Judging by the lack of ***** being displayed here I guess I should rethink posting a thread about the legend of comedy - Mrs. Slocombe



    Joking aside, not really shocked at the outcome in Russia.
     
  3. dmr727 macrumors G3

    dmr727

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2007
    Location:
    Southern California
    #3
    I'm not either. Free ****? Of course there's gonna be a riot!
     
  4. Grunwalski thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2012
    Location:
    UK
    #4
    No I guess its not such a surprise in Russia eh? But arn't we talking about a fundamental human right that we should all enjoy never mind what country we are in? Free speech. This is why we have good people like Amnesty to try to protect those in countries that have restrictions on their basic human rights.

    There is no way they should be going to prison for at least two years for singing a protest song, and it makes little difference that it was in a church.

    So despite the 'seeming' apathy the least you could do is just sign the petition, pretty please!

    Thanks.
     
  5. boss.king macrumors 68040

    boss.king

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    #5
    "Access denied
    You are not authorized to access this page."
     
  6. Grunwalski, Aug 18, 2012
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2012

    Grunwalski thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2012
    Location:
    UK
    #6
    Yep strange Im getting that now, but i just tested the link to Amnesty and that seems to work ok, I think thats the important thing. Funny that it wont work you could try googling freepussyriot and see where that gets you.......



    Cheers

    Actually i just noticed if you click on the tabs on the website it all actually works ok, so thats ok then.
     
  7. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #7
    Sadly, I'm not surprised by the outcome either.
     
  8. snberk103 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Location:
    An Island in the Salish Sea
    #8
    Just beware though.... that when you get involved in another nation's internal politics, you better be prepared to accept criticism of your own politics. Isn't another "Fundamental Human Right" the ability to create your own society without foreign interference?
    It makes a huge difference that it was in a Church. Even in the "free" western countries, we have limits on our freedom speech. One of which is that what we can say is in fact be limited by where we are. Two years may be harsh, but the concept that you can't say anything you want anywhere you want is well established.
    Signing these petitions is, imho, pretty useless anyway. No one who creates policy takes any notice of them since all it takes is a catchy social media campaign to get masses of signatures, regardless of the issue. And most people who sign then tell themselves that they have done their socially responsible thing for the week, and that they don't have to pay attention to any of the many many other serious issues 'cause they got involved and signed a petition. Call me cynical....
     
  9. Grunwalski thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2012
    Location:
    UK
    #9



    OK sure your kinda cynical. Anyway Amnesty International has intervened in the past and helped so theirs is a useful voice.

    And I'm sorry but I disagree with you. Free Speech means just that. Yes you are entitled to say what you want where you want to. You may find that you offend certain people but frankly that does not matter.

    And the Church, please, as if Religion has not got enough to answer for. Free speech does extend to inside a church too, sorry about that.

    I don't know where you are from but you seem to have some funny rules.
     
  10. snberk103 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Location:
    An Island in the Salish Sea
    #10
    So you think it's ok if someone gets up in the middle of movie your watching, in a theatre, and makes a speech about the benefits of returning to feudalism? Or that someone can stand outside a day care (with children in the playground) and talk, loudly, vividly and in detail about the rougher forms of procreation (I am trying to make a blunt point without actually being blunt, if you know what I mean...)

    Would you tolerate someone standing on the sidewalk outside your home advocating loudly that your family be burned at the stake simply because one of you had red hair, or blue eyes, or a birthmark? Or your race, gender, or sexual orientation?

    And go ahead and try to say anything all in Parliament when they are sitting.

    We already limit what you can say, and where you can say it. We believe in the idea of free speech in theory, but limit it in practice. This case in Russia would have been very different had they been out in public. But they weren't out in public.

    And ***** Riot clashed up against another "fundamental human right" (as you put it) - people engaged in a legal free assembly. In this particular case this free assembly was a religious ceremony - but at its fundamental core it was an assembly of people doing something legal.... which is also protected under most charters of rights. By condoning ***** Riot's disruption of this church service you are also condoning any disruption of any legal free assembly of people, including legal demonstrations against corruption in the government for instance.

    For the record... Canada. Where we believe in POGG.
     
  11. Grunwalski thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2012
    Location:
    UK
    #11



    As far as I’m concerned a person has the right to say whatever they want, wherever they want and I would defend their right to do so. The fact is it is unlikely that I will get a person ranting outside my house or in a cinema as most people wouldn’t see the point, if you have something to say you would probably be better off in a different place than a cinema. Plus it doesn’t matter if I like what the person has to say, no matter how ridiculous they still have a right to say it. The fact is if it is ridiculous it will probably be ignored by not just me but most others too. But do they have a right to say it? Well yes.

    Look at the Westboro Baptist Church, (not sure of the spelling) they picket peoples funerals. Most right minded people do not share their opinions but wether we like it or not they have a right to express them. It is unlikely that a majority of people will agree with them so to my mind they are simply to be ignored.

    I believe the band does have a right to protest, and yes in a church if they want to. They did not accost the church for months getting in people’s way who were just, for whatever reason they may have, going about their own private business. All they did was play a song. Surely that wont get in anyones way too much? They made their point and that was that. No big deal.

    If a person unfortunately decides to rant in a cinema of all places they would probably find most people ignoring them. If someone wants to come to my house, stand outside, and rant about me and my family, good luck to them. Not only is it pointless but as I said most people would just ignore them, as I would.

    No I am not really condoning any disruption to free assembly, but a church is a public place for everyone they did not try to stop people from going to church they just chose to protest there.

    If they took control of the church and stopped people from going there they would be wrong to do so as yes they have a right to go to church if they want. But they simply played a song in protest. Probably didn’t even last that long.


    Anyway what is POGG?
     
  12. snberk103 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Location:
    An Island in the Salish Sea
    #12
    I will give you credit for being consistent with your beliefs. Though I noticed you didn't say you would actually defend someone's right talk trash to children... saying that something is unlikely or that no one would take it seriously is not the same thing as saying that you would defend someone's right to talk trash to children. Or someone who spends 8 hours a day in front of your house advocating to have your family burned at the stake.

    What if instead of being ignored, that person in front of your house managed to convince 20 or so people that your family was wicked and needed to burnt out of your home? Do you still believe that they have the right to keep talking or do you wait for the torches to be lit before you start getting worried?

    My point is that no society that believes in right to free speech believes in totally unlimited free speech. You can't advocate that people harm other people. You can't utter death threats agains individuals. You can't stand in someone's face and yell at them. You can't stand next to a mother and start sexually fantasizing about her 3 year old, who is standing there. Or do you believe that people do have the right to say all of that?

    You also haven't addressed the issue of Freedom of Assembly... or do you think that some "fundamental human rights" are more fundamental than others?

    Peace, Order, and Good Government.... POGG

    We also rank very very highly on most measurements of freedoms.
     
  13. Grunwalski thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2012
    Location:
    UK
    #13





    In my opinion I really don’t think we can include children in the argument, I would say that children are a special case and they are innocent and that innocence should be protected for as long as we can until they are old enough to formulate their own opinions and join in.

    What I’m really talking about is an adult arena of ideas, this is something I would not expose children too especially to protect their innocence. I do not believe in indoctrination of children whether its religious or other wise.

    I’m not sure you’re examples are very good. Consider the kind of person that would want to, as you say ‘talk trash’, to children. While they may not necessarily be certifiable I would have to say that they would have some fairly serious problems, where do you find people like this? In this case the person in question undoubtably needs some help and we should see that they get some kind of counseling to help them. It would be the same situation, I think, as listening to the rantings of a madman. They may be offensive, non-sensical, mad but actually I would still defend that persons right to rant. I would hope they get treatment too. As I mentioned, personally, I would draw the line at children as I believe they are to be protected and are not yet members of this adult arena of ideas.

    About the person that convinces 20 others to burn down my home. Have I done something wrong? Does this one person have some evidence about me to suggest I’m evil? If they have some evidence that I have done something wrong I might expect a protest. But if they do not have any evidence that I’ve done something wrong, who are these further 20 people? Surely to follow someone with absolutely no evidence at all is foolish? 20 fools then? Where would you find these people? There is no question of them ‘burning down my home’ as this is an action, not an opinion and I would not allow people to destroy my private property. As to the one person that started it all, well I would suggest the same thing as the person that, as you say, wants to talk trash to children. They may not be certifiable but they do most likely have some pretty serious problems and should be given help. As I would recognize them as a person with possible mental health problems I would still support their right to say what they want.

    I can advocate to harm or kill anyone. Where it matters is if I or another person were to take any action based on this, planning, acquiring weapons, attempting to actually hurt someone, then there would be a problem. This is no longer an opinion mind as actions are being taken. What does standing in someones face and yelling at them have to do with freedom of expression?

    And I believe in your next reference you have identified a pedophile. What do we do with pedophiles? Apart from making sure they cannot pose a threat to children by keeping them in prison. And making sure that they get therapy to help point out to them that their ideas of sexuality are highly inappropriate. Do we class pedophiles as the same as the rest of us? Not really. Is it a mental illness, I don’t know. But I would suggest that a mother has every right to keep her child safe from such people. Again, I don’t think we can include children in the argument as they are not a part of the adult arena of ideas and are to be protected.

    Would I defend these peoples rights to free speech? Well I would recognize that they are, I think in all your examples, at least particularly deviant if not possibly mentally ill and as so yes I would support their right to express themselves. If we don’t who has the authority to say what we can say and what we can’t? What kind of society is that?

    And yes I think i did mention the right to free assembly in my last post. No I don’t think some fundamental human rights are more important than others. But we must be mature in our expression of these rights. As far as the band were concerned they did not stop people coming into the church, and only disturbed them for a short period of time. In my opinion they have a right to protest, especially where it involves religion interfering with politics.


    So I’m sorry but I’m sticking to my guns on this one, you have not yet changed my mind.
     
  14. snberk103 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Location:
    An Island in the Salish Sea
    #14
    OK... so we in fact determined that you do believe in some limits on free speech. Now we are just quibbling about where to draw the line. There is a famous, perhaps apocryphal, G.B. Shaw quote about this. Do you know it?
    All those other examples are redundant now.

    Free Assembly: Are you saying that any legal free assembly of people can be interrupted by anyone who wishes to express an opinion?
    No - I don't think I have, nor do I think I have to.
     
  15. ezekielrage_99 macrumors 68040

    ezekielrage_99

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2005
    #15
    Not to trollbait here...

    But Russia ≠ USA when it comes to freedom of speech.

    What did they expect? Really?

    After all the when Russia held Eurovision a few years ago Georgia was refused entry to the country after sending a group who would perform the song "we don't wanna put in".

    I don't agree with the sentence but when in Russia...
     
  16. snberk103 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Location:
    An Island in the Salish Sea
    #16
    I agree with you. Two clarifications... the OP is listed as coming from the UK. Also, it appears that OP won't be rejoining this thread any time soon.... oh well. Just when I had him on the ropes too....
     
  17. Grey Beard macrumors 65816

    Grey Beard

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2005
    Location:
    The Antipodes.
    #17
    It seems that two of the Pu$$y Rioters have fled Russia and are now of parts unknown. The first three are still incarcerated though.

    KGB:cool:
     

Share This Page