Well, for one thing, they got arrested & charged & brought to trial (if you can call it a trial) & they have been sentenced to two years in prison…. and it was due to a song that they performed.

Well you have to start somewhere, right? Who the hell knows who picks these things…

I take it “because they’re women” is the answer you’re digging for here?

I don’t think it’s as simple as that, though. People are interested in them because they were thrown in jail for performing a song protesting Putin in a church, something people might not think much of in the US or most of Europe, but in Russia, that can get you convicted. Whether they’re women, men, transexual, gay, black, whatever, I think people would be interested in them regardless of their appearance just because of the nature of their arrest.

So the “419 scam” doesn’t come to mind then?

I’m sure there are other instances more worthy of attention but a lot probably comes down to a a confluence of events. The anti-Putin protests, the church, and the anti-protest laws all sort of came to a head around their performance and arrest, not to mention the general sense they were likely to be made an example of. But most importantly, it made for good headlines in a young girl band vs the oppressive state kind of way. Frankly, something like Oleg Shein’s fine just can’t compete but the circumstances around it should’ve garnered at least a little more attention.

Supporting Pussy Riot doesn’t stop us from supporting everyone else too. There’s room in my heart for all of the oppressed. But the media has to pick and choose what it reports on. Even in the era of 24 hour news stations, there’s still too much oppression to cover it all. So they pick particularly emblematic cases and splashier stories that will get people to do their own research. The Pussy Riot story got you to find out about other cases of free speech suppression. A less explosive story might have led you to stop right there. So really, your own reaction proves that they’re doing their job right.

Why not support them? As @Patton says, supporting them doesn’t negate support for others.

And what does the ‘419 scam’ have to do with this?

I could not say it any better than @Patton has explained it. There’s an actual conviction involved- it’s a big story, and it gets people interested. Just because I support this group doesn’t mean I feel anything less for any other oppressed peoples.

But I am very confused as to how 419 scams are even remotely related here. Please, enlighten me.

I’m with @augustlan. Are we going to just let anyone the government wants to suppress go to jail unless we happen to like their art?

@Patton ”The Pussy Riot story got you to find out about other cases of free speech suppression. A less explosive story might have led you to stop right there.” Aren’t you making an assumption there? Nothing I mentioned indicated that what other oppression I knew about came after knowing about this story.

Everyone: There must be someone out there who sees the elephant in the room. I will let them express it.

@flo By “elephant in the room,” are you referring to the name of the group? The name is intended to get attention, certainly, but it really has nothing to do with why people are paying attention in this circumstance. It’s such a huge story because they have actually been convicted and sentenced to jail, not because they have a controversial name.

There are a lot of people who can be used as tools. That is what this story proves. That, and there must be some kind of virus in the air that gets sensible enough people Paul Mcartney to do ridiculous stuff. That freedom of speech can be used for the right purposes, or “Freedom of Speech/expresssion” which leads to corpocracy, and allows paedophile friendly show,Toddlers and Tiara…

People who are into freedom of speech for the right reasons use their opportunity to actrually expose something, an actual scandal, for example. not just to say “there is no freedom of speech here”, What is new about that? Even the worst of the worst sociopaths want freedom of speech.

I’m not sure I really understand what you’re trying to say here? Toddlers and Tiaras? Pedophiles? I thought this was about a group of women in Russia that got thrown in jail for performing a protest song in a church.

….The fact that they are in jail mean nothing much, it could be incidental. Maybe for whatever reason they had counted on being out of there and maybe it didn’t pan out?

@DeanV Sorry, it is about freedom of speech.

So to add to my previous post: ”....or it could be used to get to one’s name out there llegitimately, way sooner, make a ton of money and taint a good cause in the process. This band and it’s supporters do a diservice to freedom of speech.

@flo If you knew about the other cases first, why weren’t you ranting about them on Fluther before this? Pussy Riot got you bothered enough to get a conversation going, so good on them. And if we’re going to talk about who does a disservice to freedom of speech, I’m always going to say it’s the people trying to shut it down who are doing a disservice. If you don’t like what Pussy Riot does, ignore them. But putting them in jail is reprehensible.

@flo And this makes Pussy Riot different than anyone else how? There is no right or wrong when it comes to a freedom of speech; you can use it however you want except to endanger others. The fact of the matter is that true freedom of speech does not discriminate- you either have full freedom of speech or, as in the case of Pussy Riot, you don’t have it at all. It’s impossible to “do a disservice” to or “taint” the very thing that gives you the right to do so.
If you think otherwise, feel free to join the likes of those who persecute people for claiming a basic human right- they could probably use a few supporters right about now.~

Putin = USSR 2.0

This band aimed to promote (I guess they don’t know about the hateful/violence filled adult movie industry endangers the women and increases the size of the population addicted to adult films?)and they succeded by having people use the name as if it is just another word. It would be hilarious, if it weren’t sad.
The goal is to reduce the soften/improve the image of the adult industry. The only reason they got so much attention is because of the absence of journalism. All those bloggers and “journalists” not journalists, are written about by someone who used to use them like playdough.

People don’t choose people who are particularly fond of using that word publiclly, as publicly as possible, for their friends of their children and their parents, for their potential spouses, their potential employees, employers etc. guaranteed.

All you’ve proven is that you can be forced to use a word that you know is ”....” fill in the blank. Or just replace it with the word that you find the most horrid, and they can make you use it by naming themselves that word.

I think you’re really overthinking this. However you feel about Pussy Riot and their ideas, their message is simple. They’re protesting Putin in the way they know how, and although doing it in a church might have been overboard, I don’t think there’s multiple layers to their message that we’re all “missing” somehow.

If they were trying to soften the image of the adult film industry, I have no doubt that’s what they would say they’re doing. Seeing as they got thrown in jail for a song in a church, subtlety isn’t exactly in Pussy Riot’s strong suit.

Do you really think they they were willing to go to jail to ‘improve the image of the adult industry’? It seems far more likely that they risked jail time for a real cause.

Between this and your Toddlers in Tiaras thing (not to mention the 419 scam) I think you might be overthinking quite a lot.

“You might be overthinking it” is not a counter arguement at all.

I“ve already addressed. some of things like willing “to go to jail”. thing by the way.

To add to my posts they are sending people to the adult movies by using that name. Otherwise if they wanted to include as many people in the world to fight the cause of freedom why would they exclude the victims of the adult film world? And why exclude all the church people who are also for freedom of speech? Why be the very example of the down side of freedom of speech?

419 sacam is an expression that refers to how obvious a scam is, not necessarily to do with asking dupes for their account numbers

@flo Guess what? It is “just another word.” Fine, you don’t like the word- that’s understandable. The reasonable response to that is not to use it. But instead, you’ve come up with some ridiculous theory that they purposely used the word “pussy” in their name just so they could go to jail to force people to use it “as if it’s just another word,” all in the name of the adult film industry.

You have jumped to huge and completely unfounded conclusions here. The word “pussy” does not in any way “send people to the adult movies.” If I, for whatever reason, said it in conversation with you, would you think, “Hmm, I have the strangest urge to watch an adult movie now.”? No, you wouldn’t, because that’s completely ridiculous.

Their name is totally not the issue here. For the sake of my argument, pretend for a second that the group doesn’t have a name at all, and consider only the literal things that the members of the group have said. Would you still think they have this ulterior motive?

And no, 419 scam is not an expression of any sort. It refers to a specific type of scam.

No, you are overthinking it. It’s not just a buzzword I’m using to try and vilify your argument. I just think there’s no real evidence connecting Pussy Riot to anything like the adult film industry conspiracy you’re describing. In fact, I don’t think they’re trying to exclude anything. The protest itself is incredibly simple, and you’re making it more complicated than it needs to be. Overthinking it, perhaps.

This is like freaking out about spaying and neutering your dogs every time the word “bitch” appears in a rap song.

The expression ’‘419 scam’’ originated from the actual scam.
Origins of expressions

The word is pejorative when used in public, as in calling someone that. And It is meant to disturb people who haven’t used mental gymnastics into believing/trying to make people it is just another word.

So, the band and the supporters don’t want parents for example, to tell their kids to google the name of the band to learn about why they are in jail, what the cause is? That makes sense?

If someone doesn’t like something all they should do is not participate in it? By that logic there should be no law, no human/animal rights organizations, nobody who gets concerned about child abuse All they have to do is not do the things that they don’t like?

Am I going: “If you don’t like this thread here fine, all you have to do is not participate in the thread”? No, I wecome it because every response shows the contrast.