Free Pussy Riot Now! This is what Real CENSORSHIP Looks Like. | The Trichordist

please support this band in any way that you can.

This is also what propaganda is about. This was a mostly if not entirely a political protest. They begged Maria to banish Putin. No one really cared by the way. It was until the video was released on Youtube, when everything started. Some peoples religious feeling were hurt (which the protest was not really about) and then Putin's media distorted the reality and soon the girls were branded as religion haters. The Russian Orthodox Church is huge. They have alot of influence in politics and society. And lots of russians don't like the girls because of all the propaganda. It's not like they are super heroes now in Russia.

Only thing i know is


... their name ROCKS!

they don't need to be hero's they just need to be free.

Putin is a thug and a dictator. No wonder he won't intervene with the massacres in Syria. All of these evil actors will pay the bill someday here or beyond.

Where are our young activist folk singers? These are prime times for the kind of political consciousness we saw in the 60s.

Sure. What I wanted to say is, that the situation is bad for them overall. The majority hates them.

So this is real censorship and oppression compared to what exactly ... or where?

People are so cynical when it comes to Russia.

I'm sure they're around - but you won't hear much out of them without the strong label system we had in the '60s that gave their music support and promotion.

Indies like Folkways and majors like Columbia and Capitol were instrumental in supporting the music and making sure it got heard.

funny how many people on the internet like to use the word "censorship" when they fear they might not get their free beer... but when there's REAL censorship and oppression there's no online protests, no google/wikipedia blackouts, no solidarity for artists actually being persecuted and censored...

wow, just wow... now I know for sure the freehadists are really full of BS...

Not really. I follow the news from a variety of sources.
What is it you know that we don't?

al jazeera is usually a great source for non-American biased news...

After Pussy Riot, artists everywhere must stand up for each other - Opinion - Al Jazeera English

Freehadists are only interested in their "freedom" to steal.

Google is only interested in their "freedom" to profit from it.

Wikipedia et al are only interested in doing what mommy Google tells them to do so they can keep their funding.

Don't expect any of them to support any "freedom" that isn't in their self interest.

FREE PUSSY RIOT!!!!

Compared to anyone in the world who is not subject to political imprisonment fueled by religious extremist views?

guess what... the whole world is aware of it because of the internet.

the whole world was watching whats been happening in the mid east because of the internet. why, you even got to see something shoved up Gaddafi's butt.

the real tragedy is what the slippery slope of internet censorship means when political protesters communications are eventually strangled and blacked out to the rest of the world.

reality is that people downloading movies and music is a piddling side issue by comparison. ironically, what you say about 'freehadists' can be said about you guys boosting your importance in the world so much out of proportion that it may very well lead to full scale censorship in every aspect

nothing wrong with the internet, never said there was.

the real tragedy is an internet black out to protect google's bottom line but no such support for actual censorship... I guess google isn't worried about REAL censorship.

wait till the shill reports come out... wanna guess who google is supporting?

BBC News - Oracle confirms paying a blogger but Google names no-one

Judge: Google didn’t follow “show your shills” order | Ars Technica


actually it's billions of dollars a year being made illegally. billions.

complete and total nonsense. follow the money... follow the money... which has nothing to do with freedom of speech other than trivializing the word censorship by those who want something for nothing.

Aimee Mann Exploited by Russian Brides, Wells Fargo Bank and Nationwide Insurance | The Trichordist

The way I see it, is that no amount of money is comparable to being sentenced to two years in a labor camp for political/religious purposes. A world where this can happen is scary indeed, but an internet where this can't even be reported is at least as bad. The SOPA language was vague, that scares people. Not defending google here, but I think it is best not to compare this incident with the recent legislation attempt. That was speculated censorship, this is real, and it deserves to be treated independently IMO.

the googles of the world are just flipsides of the same corporate fascism as the big media conglomerates.

all barbarians at war with each other over who wins the most stuff

i also don't buy into corporate creative accounting... we've 'lost' billions because....

its almost akin to me buying lottery tickets then saying 'i lost 40 million' after every drawing cuz i didn't hit.

So where are Google and their shills at Wikipedia on this issue? Why are they not speaking up if they're so "opposed" to censorship?

The fact is that they're not really opposed to censorship at all, they're opposed to what threatens their bottom line and are perfectly willing to use anything, including "censorship" as an excuse to stir up opposition, even when they know what they're saying is a lie - and when a REAL censorship issue comes up they're nowhere to be found because they have no financial interest - or possibly because they feel it's in their interest not to rile the Russian government.

I pretty much agree, my only point was that since this is a real cesorship issue it should not be lumped in with, and confused, for business practices. We all know google doesn't really care about that, but the people who do should focus on the actual issue at hand and not try to use it as leverage.

I've seen extensive coverage on tv from my local national broadcaster, which has a correspondent on the ground in Moscow.
I haven't personally seen anything about Pussy Riot on the internet.

are you even allowed to say 'pussy' here?

anyways... you mean you did a search for pussy riot and found NOTHING???

Same here.
Saw it on several TV news outlets, including local news and in the *gasp* paper.
This forum is the first i read of it on the internet..

I mean.... I was aware of the band and their case through traditional television news. And as i drove home last Friday there was a long segment on my national radio station about their being found guilty.
It seems like you're claiming we only know about them because of the internet, and if we didn't have the internet we wouldn't have heard of them, or similar persecuted people. That's actually wrong IMO.

my point exactly.

google tricked people into confusing free beer with free speech by running a scare campaign internet black out, but here we have ACTUAL censorship and oppression and Jimmy Wales is on his yacht and Larry Page is flying to an island on his private jet...

let's not be naive' about this... google is about money, not personal freedoms, that much is clear from their (lack of) respect for personal privacy.

it's time the faithful woke up, they're only interested in money. big corporate advertising money. not freedom of speech, not censorship, not artists rights, and not even human rights.

I likewise doubt that we know of Pussy Riot and their situation because of the internet; Russia is not so isolated or difficult for reporters to access that it's solely the internet which facilitated the reporting on this story. But it's kind of ridiculous to suggest that there isn't a lot of internet reportage on the topic (and it's not just you, either, now with another post concurring to your own remark above); I mean, Google News literally has an entire section devoted to tracking coverage of the issue.

now i'm perplexed. of course you'd hear about it on tv and radio but its also all over the web as well.

however nowadays, for all intents and purposes, tv and radio are more part of as well as an extension of the internet rather than the other way round

IMO you've gotten that one backwards... but to each their own.

The content on television needs to please advertisers (unless it's viewer-supported). That severely affects the content that reaches your couch (e.g. filtering, framing of issues, etc). And the obvious, natural eventuality of having news outlets that are owned by corporations and beholden to advertisers (i.e. other corporations) is that those news outlets develop actual political agendas that align with the agendas of the people who sign the checks.

Pretty common sense.


The internet isn't like that (yet). If you have the internet, you can have access to raw information (e.g. accounts of Afghanistan that haven't been filtered through the corporate media, accounts of Occupy Wall Street that don't frame them as "dirty hippie socialists", etc). The internet enables kids to set up LiveStream feeds of live events, and anyone in the world with the internet can watch.

This is unprecedented in history. It offers great hope.


When I was 12 or 13 I saw a segment on CNN where they were showcasing the beauty of a fighter jet. The elegance of the design, the sophistication and accuracy of the technology...then I remembered that this machine was designed to mow down entire villages of people at a time, and I got the distinct impression that these "journalists" weren't doing they're job.


Anyway...yes, some aspects of the internet mirror television, but beyond that the internet is (mostly) wild and free.

Leverage? Are you kidding? We're talking about a large business entity that made a huge propaganda campaign to protect their financial interests in the guise of a free speech issue that HAS NOT DONE ONE BLESSED THING to help on a real issue of free speech.

We're talking about calling the bluff of liars who are actively exploiting musicians. We're talking about calling the bluff of phonies who pretend to be for free speech but really are only interested in their bottom line.

It's all the same damn issue. Musician's rights. The right of musicians to speak freely. The right of musicians to be able to support themselves so they can speak freely. The right of musicians not to be oppressed, be it by the Russian Government or American corporations.

Musicians are the n*****s of the internet world.

When Lennon called Woman the worlds ****** I had respect for him because I believed he used the word for good... You... Not so much.