U.S. Concerned About Pussy Riot Sentencing

The United States has responded harshly to the August 17, 2012, conviction in Russia of Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, Maria Alyokhina and Yekaterina Samutsevich -- better known as punk rock group Pussy Riot -- on charges of "hooliganism." The group received the extraordinarily tough sentence of two years in prison for entering a Russian Orthodox Church in February and singing "Mother Mary, please drive Putin away."

The women demonstrated in the church to protest what they believe is a sham democracy under Putin and their contention that the Orthodox Church is compliant to Putin's wishes.

The Russian court that sentenced Pussy Riot said the conviction was for disrespecting the church and disrupting services there, not for criticizing Russian President Vladimir Putin or his administration.

Western countries doubt that. While the old atheistic Soviet Union could not have cared less about respecting the church, the severe blow to freedom of speech in the verdict harkens back to Stalinism.

U.S Responses

After the Russian court handed out the sentence, the U.S.-run Voice of America (VOA) ran a story headlined "Kremlin x Pussy Riot: Girls Win!" VOA Moscow bureau chief James Brooke explained that, in spite of the sentencing, the trial had made the Russian court system look foolish. It had also garnered worldwide support for the band from celebrities such as Paul McCartney and Madonna. The neon-colored, homemade balaclava masks that the women wore have become the symbol of Pussy Riot supporters.

U.S. State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland issued a brief response to the sentence. "The United States is concerned about both the verdict and the disproportionate sentences handed down by a Moscow court in the case against the members of the band Pussy Riot and the negative impact on freedom of expression in Russia," she said.

"We urge Russian authorities to review this case and ensure that the right to freedom of expression is upheld."

White House spokesman Josh Earnest echoed that comment saying, "The United States is disappointed by the verdict, including the disproportionate sentences that were granted. While we understand the group's behavior was offensive to some, we have serious concerns about the way that these young women have been treated by the Russian judicial system."

Regarded As Human Rights Violation

The American responses were obviously token, meant to convey U.S. displeasure and reiterate the American position that it regards freedom of expression as a basic human right. The First Amendment to the U.S. Bill of Rights protects freedom of speech along with freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, and freedom to petition the government.

The U.S. State Department monitors global human rights abuses -- both big and small. The State Department organizes concerns about freedom of expression under its Human Rights category. State says part of its global mandate is to "promote greater respect for human rights, including freedom from torture, freedom of expression, press freedom, women's rights, children's rights, and the protection of minorities."

Monitoring free speech concerns is one thing, trying to make countries abide by enlightenment free speech standards is another. Even in the U.S. history, free speech cases have proven to be a balancing act. The classic 1917 case of Schenck vs. United States said that speech is not protected if it endangers the public good. The 1942 case Chaplinsky vs. New Hampshire held that "fighting words" -- that is, words or phrases that tend to create a breach of the peace -- are also not protected speech. Nevertheless, in 1989 the Supreme Court ruled in Texas vs. Johnson that burning the American flag is protected speech.