Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, not really. She's a public person, who is spreading hate on the social media. It is fully within the owners right to cancel her concert.
Sure, hatred should be *spread* in the opposite direction only, the one that owners consider to be the "correct one." Anyone who dares to think differently, should be punished.
Just because she has an opinion about something CONTRARY to another doesn't mean she deserves to be blacklisted. Speaking what's on your mind that which is within reasonable bounds does not make you a bad person.
I never agreed in any way with the stifling of free speech as long as you're not shouting fire in a crowded theatre or the like. She is not doing that. She's just said something that caught the attention of some maniacs who the ownership of the theatre is terrified of.
This is not the freedom of speech the west claims to uphold.
Last edited by Rozenn; 04-12-2015 at 05:17 AM..
Reason: Rude
No, not really. She's a public person, who is spreading hate on the social media. It is fully within the owners right to cancel her concert.
It should of been mentioned that she go paid,,they used someone else,,,so alls fair..As for it being moral,that's up to it's patrons...One must remember that any business doe's what's in their best interest and makes their move,that's fair enough..
Like so many incidents way to much has been made of something minor. That is because politics has become embedded in the real news......
One must remember that any business doe's what's in their best interest and makes their move,that's fair enough..
And there lies the rub. The business was intimidated by some crazies. This is the kind of speech that should be punished, not the kind that is personal opinion. She didn't even bring it to the theater. She said it on her face book.
It should of been mentioned that she go paid,,they used someone else,,,so alls fair..As for it being moral,that's up to it's patrons...
Yes, it's all fair, the only unfair part here is when someone claims that it's all about "freedom and democracy," ( insisting on "spreading it around the world,") yet leaving morals *up to patrons.* Yes, this kind of hypocrisy needs to be stopped. There is god you see, and then there is "democracy."
I've already mentioned before that I am a believer (that's not necessarily the same as being a religious person,) and I can totally see why this "order of things" is coming to an end. The whole "Ukrainian affair" is unmistakable sign of it.
Just because she has an opinion about something CONTRARY to another doesn't mean she deserves to be blacklisted. Speaking what's on your mind that which is within reasonable bounds does not make you a bad person.
I never agreed in any way with the stifling of free speech as long as you're not shouting fire in a crowded theatre or the like. She is not doing that. She's just said something that caught the attention of some maniacs who the ownership of the theatre is terrified of.
This is not the freedom of speech the west claims to uphold.
This is not a question of freedom of speech. She used her freedom of speech, the privately owned symphony orchestra found her opinions distasteful (rightly so), therefore they refused to perform with her. Totally understandable. I wouldn't spent a second with a Moscow Junta sympathizer.
If a Westerner expressed sympathy with Ukraine while being in Moscow, the Westerner would have been jailed, because in Russia there is no freedom of speech. You haven't reached that stage of civilization yet.
But this no-name pianist can go back to Donbass whenever she feel like it. She hasn't committed a crime.
See the difference?
Last edited by Rozenn; 04-12-2015 at 05:18 AM..
Reason: Orphaned - Response to an edited post
This is not a question of freedom of speech. She used her freedom of speech, the privately owned symphony orchestra found her opinions distasteful (rightly so), therefore they refused to perform with her.
You are getting all confused. Of course it's a question of freedom of speech. If someone in charge of situation doesn't like to hear what she has to say and she is going to be punished - deprived of her livelihood, deprived of her job, it's all about freedom of speech and punishment for it. The fact that it's done differently, in a less crude way comparably to blunt Soviet way, doesn't change it.
Quote:
Totally understandable. I wouldn't spent a second with a Moscow Junta sympathizer.
That's correct. YOU as a spectator have every right to not to come to her performance, being disagreed with her views. That's your right, and some can agree with you, but the majority most likely doesn't care about her political views; they'd come to listen to her performance anyway. However if the EMPLOYER punishes her for her point of view, it's all about freedom of speech. Or absence of such. And that's the hypocrisy of the West, that Russians took note of, already twenty years ago.
Quote:
If a Westerner expressed sympathy with Ukraine while being in Moscow, the Westerner would have been jailed, because in Russia there is no freedom of speech. You haven't reached that stage of civilization yet.
Again nonsense. It was the Soviet Union that didn't have freedom of speech, because the government was imprisoning those who dared to challenge the system. In capitalist Russia that came after, there was plenty of "freedom of speech." Anyone could of have said anything about the new government, about the new system, but since everyone was deprived of money ( except for the few, directly benefiting from this system,) it really didn't matter. If you didn't have money, your words didn't change anything, you had no power whatsoever. So you might as well have talked all you wanted.
Same with modern Russia. You definitely have freedom of speech (" Dozhd" channel is a good example of it, all anti-government marches ( recent mass pro-Ukrainian marches in Moscow including) coordinated with government's approval - those are all proofs of the freedom of speech in Russia. It does exist of course. That this freedom of speech doesn't CHANGE anything - that's a totally different question, and that's the part that you don't apparently understand.
See the difference?
No I don't. Hypocrisy is hypocrisy. If I say I hold a certain value above all others then I should show it, demonstrate it. Live by it and be better than the one I am accusing.
My mother always told me not to criticize the cleanliness of someones home unless yours is immaculate.
No, Erasure. The privately owned orchestra and all of the musicians can decide whether they want to play with a fascist like her. It has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Trust me on this one. You are Russian, it is a difficult concept to grasp.
I didn't bother reading the rest of your post.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Anyone who dares to think differently, should be punished.
