what is your attitude toward "pussy riot"?

[alkis3]

ydoaPs

But in Russia there is freedom of speech

but freedom of speech does not mean permissiveness

[ajb]

I know that they don't have anything as hard and fast wrt speech in the UK, but I doubt any of the laws that they would have broken would have resulted in the punishment they actually got. As far as I can tell, they'd probably get a trespassing fine and maybe a fine for disturbing the peace (or whatever the UK equivalent is).

I doubt it would be clear. For sure they would have been moved on citing some religious hatred laws or something, but then on reflection I doubt they would have been charged with something that serious.

 

In UK law we don't have trespass as such either, just being somewhere you are not supposed to be is not against the law. There needs to be some intent to commit a crime. Disturbing the peace we do have, so maybe they would get a fine from a magistrates court. Jail time I doubt very much.

[ydoaPs]

But in Russia there is freedom of speech

If you can be jailed for being 'offensive', then there is no freedom of speech.

[Phi for All]

I don't know Russian law either, but "hooliganism" sounds like a law enacted as a knee-jerk response to your gang problems. You probably have individual laws that cover most anything a hooligan can do, but your conservatives argue it isn't enough, so they pass a law that supersedes the regular laws against vandalism, loitering and whatever else hooligans do.

 

And so you end up sending someone to jail for seven years for trying to make a political statement that some found offensive. I'm not a big fan of things that are held sacred. It basically means "if you don't agree with me, I don't want to hear from you about this". I think that stance is antithetical to learning anything.

[alkis3]

 

In Britain it is not explicitly against the law to be naked in public.

I don't know,for me it is strange

If I saw a naked man on the street,I would have been afraid of him

about the fact that if he does not understand that bare it is incorrectly,the person with such views potentially dangerous

[ydoaPs]

about the fact that if he does not understand that bare it is incorrectly,the person with such views potentially dangerous

How is understanding that there is nothing bad about the human form potentially dangerous?

[alkis3]

 

If you can be jailed for being 'offensive', then there is no freedom of speech.

Well, in America we have the freedom of deistviya?

Yes there.

but this does not mean that you can take and kill someone unpunished

[ajb]

I don't know,for me it is strange

If I saw a naked man on the street,I would have been afraid of him

about the fact that if he does not understand that bare it is incorrectly,the person with such views potentially dangerous

He could be mentally ill or just escaped from a house fire in the middle of the night. In both these examples no intent to course harm or distress at all. He needs help not arresting.

 

But I think we are diverging here.

Edited April 7, 2014 by ajb

[alkis3]

 

How is understanding that there is nothing bad about the human form potentially dangerous?

Well, it's not normal you understand?It is also not normal as swearing in the public place,or to have sex at theatre

or do you think that if you do not apply physical harm you can do any act?

 

He needs help not arresting.

well, there the police will investigate

[ydoaPs]

Well, in America we have the freedom of deistviya?

Yes there.

but this does not mean that you can take and kill someone unpunished

Being free to say only what the administration of your country likes is no freedom at all. And there is no interpretation of any federal law in the USA that would grant us the right to kill people for no reason.

 

A general rule: If you're not hurting anyone, it's probably ok.

 

Well, it's not normal you understand?It is also not normal as swearing in the public place,or to have sex at theatre

or do you think that if you do not apply physical harm you can do any act?

 

well, there the police will investigate

It's not normal where you are. It's perfectly normal in certain parts of Europe. There's nothing bad about the human form. It just is. And there's nothing bad about 'swear words'. The more examples you bring up as things that should be illegal, the more draconian you make Russia look.

 

Yeah, for the most part, if you do not apply physical harm, or cause the possibility of physical harm, then it's probably just fine. As for sex in a theatre, that's a public health issue.

[Phi for All]

Well, it's not normal you understand?It is also not normal as swearing in the public place,or to have sex at theatre

or do you think that if you do not apply physical harm you can do any act?

 

But you should already have laws in place that cover such acts. Is there any act covered by your hooliganism law that wasn't covered before the law?

 

One thing I've learned in my life in the US is that politicians have hundreds of deals going on all the time, and they look for laws that that will help them close deals and stay in office. They love emotional, morality-based responses because people will allow a lot to happen when they feel outraged or violated. You have to be careful how much power you give these people, you never know when YOU might be considered a hooligan.

[alkis3]

The country is not one person

the country is a lot of people

in order to exist together,we need rules that would fit all,but the rules can't fit all

one group of people wants on the street walking naked,another group want to be on the street walking in clothes

street belongs to both groups.....

and then what do we do?street belongs to both groups

the first group wants all walked down the street dressed

the second group wants all went naked

how do these groups?

 

if each group will do as he wants,it is not a country,and not freedom,it'll be anarchy

Edited April 7, 2014 by alkis3

[ajb]

street belongs to both groups.....

In a tolerant society one allows both groups to exist and do what they do.

 

This does not mean that all of one group has to like what the other group is doing, quite the opposite they are free to find the other group distasteful and wrong. But they are tolerant to the fact that there are many ways to live a life and so allow the other group to exist.

 

Russia from what I read and hear from visitors is not very tolerant of people who live, lets say different life styles.

[ydoaPs]

The country is not one person

the country is a lot of people

in order to exist together,we need rules that would fit all,but the rules can't fit all

That's why laws are ideally written with Rawls's veil of ignorance in mind. The best laws are laws you would agree with if you didn't know what your position in society would be.

 

Often times, as Phi, pointed out, there is corruption. However, this veil of ignorance is how laws are supposed to go. This is how freedom is supposed to work. If you're not interfering with the freedom of other people, and you're not hurting them, then what you are doing is just fine 9 times out of 10. We require a reason (a non-religious reason, in fact) to make something illegal.

 

one group of people wants on the street walking naked,another group want to be on the street walking in clothes

street belongs to both groups.....

Your freedom doesn't extend to forcing people to do what you want them to do.

[alkis3]

 

In a tolerant society one allows both groups to exist and do what they do.

but it is not possible

one group excludes the behavior of the first,and conversely

the only solution coexistence together,to create common rules that had been supported and one group and another

[ydoaPs]

but it is not possible

one group excludes the behavior of the first,and conversely

 

 

the only solution coexistence together,to create common rules that had been supported and one group and another

Indeed. So, the group that wants to be nude goes around nude and the group that doesn't want to be nude wears clothes. Problem solved.

[ajb]

but it is not possible

one group excludes the behavior of the first,and conversely

 

 

the only solution coexistence together,to create common rules that had been supported and one group and another

We may have common rules on many important things, especially when preventing harm to individuals or groups, but this does not extend to everything, particularly personal issues.

Edited April 7, 2014 by ajb

[alkis3]

ydoaPs

you say the physical liberty

but physical freedom is not the main freedom,chief freedom is spiritual freedom

if you live in a society where you can not attack,but can offend

is it you call that freedom?you will only receive the freedom of the body,but not the freedom of the spirit

Edited April 7, 2014 by alkis3

[ydoaPs]

ydoaPs

you say the physical liberty

but physical freedom is not the main freedom,chief freedom is spiritual freedom

if you live in a society where you can not attack,but can offend

is it you call that freedom?you will only receive the freedom of the body,but not the freedom of the spirit

Your freedom of the spirit is no such thing. It's oppression of the spirit of those unlike the administration. The USA, on the other hand, does have 'freedom of the spirit'. The situation in your OP is an ironclad demonstration that Russia has no such freedom.

[alkis3]

if you have suppressed physically it is not terrible

if you are depressed in spirit this is the end

[ajb]

...chief freedom is spiritual freedom

The US is quite up on spiritual freedom from what I understand via the first amendment.

[ydoaPs]

if you have suppressed physically it is not terrible

if you are depressed in spirit this is the end

And that's exactly what the laws in Russia do. They tell people what kind of spirit they can't have. If you have laws against speech and laws against a fundamental aspect of your personal identity, then you have no 'freedom of spirit', only oppression of spirit.

[Phi for All]

The country is not one person

the country is a lot of people

in order to exist together,we need rules that would fit all,but the rules can't fit all

one group of people wants on the street walking naked,another group want to be on the street walking in clothes

street belongs to both groups.....

and then what do we do?street belongs to both groups

the first group wants all walked down the street dressed

the second group wants all went naked

how do these groups?

 

if each group will do as he wants,it is not a country,and not freedom,it'll be anarchy

 

But this isn't the problem. Arguing against public nudity is easy, but it really isn't what these people really want to do, is it? You can't argue against what Pussy Riot tried to do by claiming public nudity is bad. That's avoiding the real issue in favor of knocking down a man made of straw.

 

Anarchy isn't the problem here either. I think you have a lot of people who are used to thinking and acting very conservatively, and you have a lot of people who are progressively exploring the freedoms offered by a democratic government. You need both perspectives in order to grow. One side says, "Hey, let's try this!" and the other side says, "But we need to be careful!" Things balance out but both sides need to be willing to compromise and cooperate.

 

And Pussy Riot was right about arguing against church support of state leaders, imo. It's very dangerous and I hope they made some people think about separating those power bases.

[alkis3]

 

The US is quite up on spiritual freedom from what I understand via the first amendment

if I have no protection from abuse,or from the fact that the streets will walk addicts ,or naked\

for me it's a mess,not freedom

[ajb]

if I have no protection from abuse,or from the fact that the streets will walk addicts ,or naked\

for me it's a mess,not freedom

There is plenty of legal protection and policing in the west, just we like to do our best to respect all sides of the argument and treat all people with dignity. Of course it does not always work out that way, but that is the ideal.

 

Or have I missed your point?