Last year, in protest to Russia's anti-blasphemy law that criminalized playing Pokémon GO in church, vlogger Ruslan Sokolovsky filmed himself catching Pokémons in Yekaterinburg’s Church of All Saints, the site where the last Emperor of Russia Nicholas II and his family were murdered in 1918, and shared the footage on his YouTube channel:

​

The 22-year old was then detained for two months for “inciting hatred” and “insulting religious feelings” after posting the video, and later taken to a pre-trial detention center for breaching the terms of his house arrest after the young man had posted a video on the Internet though he had been banned from using the web and mobile communications. Judgement was passed this Thursday and Sokolovsky was found guilty of all charges.

"In accordance with the expert evaluation, the court found blogger Sokolovsky guilty of inciting hatred, violating religious feelings and illegal possession of special technical means - a pen with a video camera," said judge Yekaterina Shoponyak who granted the prosecutors' wish and gave the vlogger a 3.5-year suspended sentence.

Judge Shoponyak pointed out that the 22-year old video blogger was on trial not only for playing the game in the church but also for posting several videos that offended believers. She listed "mockery of the immaculate conception," ''denial of the existence of Jesus and Prophet Muhammad" and "giving an offensive description of Patriarch Kirill," the head of the Russian Orthodox Church.

During the court hearings, Sokolovsky did not deny that he had been the author of these videos but concerning the pen with a camera, he reportedly said that not only was the pen not his, but that it wasn’t a camera at all, but instead just a light bulb.

During the interrogation of eyewitnesses, the blogger apologized to all worshippers who had complained about being offended.

What do you think of this case? Was the verdict fair in finding Sokolovsky guilty who on top of violating the country's anti-blasphemy law, additionally breached the terms of his house arrest? Or is suppressing one's freedom of expression a more serious offense?

SOURCE 1, SOURCE 2

 

[cthompson80]

Nobody here thus far is surprised that violating a law has consequences; it is the existence of the law, prosecution taken seriously under it and the sentence it incurred that is under discussion and causing eyebrows to be raised.

I see that but why talk about something that won't change? Oh right, I forgot, freedom of speech. There's no reason to raise anything up on this. Except concerns that people shouldn't make poor choices or abuse their rights. This can be argued until the end of time but here in about a week this discussion will be swept under the rug as old news since justice has served it's purpose. The decision was made and now little boy 22 gets to spend 3.5 in the pokey.

To add insult to injury. His Pokemon catching skills were just shit. Maybe if he's lucky they'll let him take a Pikachu plush with him into his cell. What a waste at 22.

Sent from my SM-G935R4 using Tapatalk

 

[0100100001001001]

Geesh! Wonder what they would have done to this guy

Spoiler

PS: This Church must be cool! Wait till the end and you will hear clapping

 

[dimmidice]

But yea, if there's a law in place that says you should NOT be doing something, then you should NOT do it, no matter how stupid it is.

That's nonsense. If your country passed a law saying the internet is now banned would you just stand for it? Where do you draw the line? Or a law saying every sunday at 13:00 everyone has to stand on their hands for half an hour? What he did wasn't wrong at all. It's just against the law. And regardless of it being the law doesn't mean the punishment is just. Punishing someone just because the law says it's what's required doesn't mean its morally justified.

 

[FAST6191]

If a place you don't own that you're a guest at has rules. Even if you don't agree with them, I don't give a shit, follow the rules, and everything will be fine. A sign says don't trespass, then don't trespass, if you're at a waterpark and the rules for the rides say don't stand on this ride, don't stand. You always can do these things that you're told not to, but if you do, then you have to face the consequences yourself and I feel no sympathy for you. That guy knew the rules and broke them anyway, he deserves to be punished.

Then we have radically different approaches on how the law should work, and seemingly philosophies on law making. A logical conclusion to your position would seem to be against the idea of fundamental laws that other laws may go against and thus get dismissed (or in American parlance an example might be when a law gets struck down for violating a given amendment). Going further what if there are bad rules in place? Ones that maybe can not be worked to, or ones you find abhorrent under other governing principles; I am sure we could find some religious book that governs somewhere in the world that would say something both of us find utterly unpalatable, possibly one commanding us to harm someone else because of something that harmed nobody (because they are gay, because they have an unpopular religion, because the slept with someone outside marriage, because they did not pay the religion of the state), would you do something under that situation?
Had the person been done for disruption of an event then we may still be having a discussion, had he just been asked to leave and not it again then that works too, this however was being charged under laws I find to actually be quite illogical, even barbaric. I want laws the world over to be fair and logical, when I see otherwise I find myself inclined to question things. The standards are indeed my own but I would hold not too far out of line with those that govern the systems at work in countries that get all the nice quality of life scores. Whether that is a good position to argue from is possibly up for debate, however comparing the legal systems of other countries against those of others, and the tenets that underpin them, is if nothing else a popular one to go for.

Or if you prefer it is not an unexpected result of violating the law there, deserving of sanction for the actions taken is a rather different matter.

If you want to feel the way you do then feel free, however I have no idea how we are going to reconcile this enough to have a useful conversation, at least not without going to fundamental principles and why we each hold them.

I see that but why talk about something that won't change? Oh right, I forgot, freedom of speech. There's no reason to raise anything up on this. Except concerns that people shouldn't make poor choices or abuse their rights. This can be argued until the end of time but here in about a week this discussion will be swept under the rug as old news since justice has served it's purpose. The decision was made and now little boy 22 gets to spend 3.5 in the pokey.

It is a suspended sentence. All the job prospect ruining fun with none of the cost to the state.
Talking about it in this case would seem to serve to make people aware of things that are happening in the world, because of it my opinion of Russia has dropped somewhat and with it my desire to use services or goods from there, visit the place or accept its positions/opinions as part of international negotiations and organisations.
Has justice served its purpose? From where I sit the law is there to see sanctions given to those that have or would harm others in some manner. As I have a hard time seeing any harm done in this case I am now seeing sanctions given to someone that did no harm, and that is not justice from where I sit.
I agree that in the end that little change will happen as a result of my actions, or indeed the existence of the thread here. That has seldom stopped anything in the past though.

 

[AndreTrek]

If a place you don't own that you're a guest at has rules. Even if you don't agree with them, I don't give a shit, follow the rules, and everything will be fine. A sign says don't trespass, then don't trespass, if you're at a waterpark and the rules for the rides say don't stand on this ride, don't stand. You always can do these things that you're told not to, but if you do, then you have to face the consequences yourself and I feel no sympathy for you. That guy knew the rules and broke them anyway, he deserves to be punished.

Can you not see that this is an incredibly dangerous mindset to have?
Speaking in hypothetics, let's say I'm the owner of a room and that for whatever reason, you have something you need to do in it. However, I, as the absolute authority and law of the room have placed a sign in it that reads "1. Breathing in this room is forbidden, 2. It is forbidden to leave this room without waiting 5 minutes after entry". I am also legally enabled to sentence anyone who breaks either of those rules to a slow and painful death.
Would you:
1. Abide by the rules and possibly die of asphyxiation?
2. Break the rules but accept your punishment and feel that "you deserved" this absurdly disproportionate retribution?
3. Realize the insanity of this situation and fight back against it?
This might be an extrapolation of the issue at hand, but the core of the problem is the same.

 

[cthompson80]

Can you not see that this is an incredibly dangerous mindset to have?
Speaking in hypothetics, let's say I'm the owner of a room and that for whatever reason, you have something you need to do in it. However, I, as the absolute authority and law of the room have placed a sign in it that reads "1. Breathing in this room is forbidden, 2. It is forbidden to leave this room without waiting 5 minutes after entry". I am also legally enabled to sentence anyone who breaks either of those rules to a slow and painful death.
Would you:
1. Abide by the rules and possibly die of asphyxiation?
2. Break the rules but accept your punishment and feel that "you deserved" this absurdly disproportionate retribution?
3. Realize the insanity of this situation and fight back against it?
This might be an extrapolation of the issue at hand, but the core of the problem is the same.

I'd just go somewhere else. If I can't breathe in that place I'll find another place. Same principle applies to that boy. He could have went anywhere to play Pokemon Go but he chose a place that was against the law to practice Pokemonism in. Here's another example. Drinking beer is legal for me as I'm old enough to do so. Now let's say I want to drink this said beer in a police station. Let's say I felt the need to go in there because I have a friend that works there and I needed to tell him something important. Now think for a moment. Do you think the police would allow me to come inside their building with an open alcohol container and drink it? I know for a fact that they wouldn't and I'd be charged on several accounts.

Sent from my SM-G935R4 using Tapatalk

 

[WhiteMaze]

Even though I'm not a believer myself I don't think it's fair to mock someone's beliefs.

But yea, if there's a law in place that says you should NOT be doing something, then you should NOT do it, no matter how stupid it is.

I agree that if it is illegal, you shouldn't do it. Even if it is stupid. I also agree that it is not fair to mock people's beliefs.

The problem here, is how severe the sentence is.

3.5 years? For playing Pokemon Go in a church and offending a priest? The fuck!?

How about catching real criminals like drug dealers, murderers and child molesters? I believe society would benefit far more.

 

[FAST6191]

If indeed it was done as an act of protest against the rules of the land, as it appears to be and as the laws of the land there appear to also be punishing him for, then there is scope to argue something. You are allowed to protest laws (or at least anywhere with some measure of free speech you are), and while not likely to be pleasant the act of forcing a case involving them and in doing so highlighting the ridiculous nature of the laws in question (or indeed maybe not getting the case despite attempting to force them) is a fairly potent form of protest.

If you wanted to frame your booze drinking as an act of protest then there is also scope. The idea in the US though seems to be that they are allowed to restrict what you put in your body, and further place restrictions on how, where and in some cases when. The idea of open container laws also being a somewhat unique concept to the US. With that said drunken people are fairly easily shown to have negative effects and thus possibly warranting some regulation, the harm done by someone doing a "mockery of the immaculate conception," ''denial of the existence of Jesus and Prophet Muhammad" and "giving an offensive description of Patriarch Kirill," is rather more tricky to demonstrate, and indeed is held to be so low or so important a thing to be able to do that it in turn the US has highly enshrined rules to allow people to do.
Would not be surprised at your being sanctioned at some level, would find it a bit sad that the state of laws in that country led to that.

 

[bi388]

I'd just go somewhere else. If I can't breathe in that place I'll find another place. Same principle applies to that boy. He could have went anywhere to play Pokemon Go but he chose a place that was against the law to practice Pokemonism in. Here's another example. Drinking beer is legal for me as I'm old enough to do so. Now let's say I want to drink this said beer in a police station. Let's say I felt the need to go in there because I have a friend that works there and I needed to tell him something important. Now think for a moment. Do you think the police would allow me to come inside their building with an open alcohol container and drink it? I know for a fact that they wouldn't and I'd be charged on several accounts.

Sent from my SM-G935R4 using Tapatalk

The issues are different because the protester doesnt want to be able to play pokemon in church as an end goal, he wants blasphemy laws to be removed as they are discriminatory. He just chose that as a way to show their ridiculousness. The police have a good reason to keep alcohol out of their work place, where as non disruptively playing pokemon (anytime church is not actively going on) gets in no ones way.

 

[duffmmann]

Can you not see that this is an incredibly dangerous mindset to have?
Speaking in hypothetics, let's say I'm the owner of a room and that for whatever reason, you have something you need to do in it. However, I, as the absolute authority and law of the room have placed a sign in it that reads "1. Breathing in this room is forbidden, 2. It is forbidden to leave this room without waiting 5 minutes after entry". I am also legally enabled to sentence anyone who breaks either of those rules to a slow and painful death.
Would you:
1. Abide by the rules and possibly die of asphyxiation?
2. Break the rules but accept your punishment and feel that "you deserved" this absurdly disproportionate retribution?
3. Realize the insanity of this situation and fight back against it?
This might be an extrapolation of the issue at hand, but the core of the problem is the same.

If you don't need to be in that room, and are there by choice, then adhere to the rules, simple as that. If you're forced to be somewhere, then sure, all bets are off. But we're not talking about anyone being held somewhere against their will. This guy willfully entered the church by choice, by no means did he have to be there and no one was forcing him to stay there, he knew the rules and deliberately disobeyed them. Your example is incredibly poor and is not what I was talking about.

 

[grossaffe]

Shouldn't be too surprising when someone who intentionally breaks the law and broadcasts it goes to jail. Comes with the territory of Civil Disobedience.

 

[bi388]

snipt.

This is the first time ive ever agreed with you. Calling Jenner a man, while offensive to her, should be 100% legal, as should insulting the russian church or government. Making expressing your opinion illegal is fascism and oppression.

 

[duffmmann]

Let me put it this way. It is illegal to smoke pot in my state, I may want to go outside and smoke a big old blunt in an act of Free Speech. But I wouldn't be surprised for a second, and would understand why, if I get a fine or even jail time for doing that. Even though I disagree with the rule, I get it, and I'd certainly understand why if a video of me doing just that could get me into trouble. This isn't hard shit to understand.

 

[Xzi]

Uhhhhhhh.. Jail time for playing a game in church? K

IKR, what else is there to do in a church? When the craze was at its pinnacle, most churches in the US were very welcoming to pogo players, it's not like they're seeing record attendance these days lol.

 

[SG854]

Calling Bruce Jenner a man should be 100% legal. And and being able to call those people dicks, that call her a man should be 100% legal too. We should let human societal decency norms govern and not the law in this situation. Getting enough people gather to make the person feel bad for calling her a man, enough to make them stop, is the way to go. Freedom of expression, and freedom to make the person feel guilt. Preventing certain feelings from being felt should not be enforced or be part of the law, but enforced by common people, without involving jail and fines.

 

[Subtle Demise]

Even though I'm not a believer myself I don't think it's fair to mock someone's beliefs.

But yea, if there's a law in place that says you should NOT be doing something, then you should NOT do it, no matter how stupid it is.

I don't get it.. Sure, the law may or not be dumb. That's a separate discussion.

BUT:

I mean, what does he expect? Regardless of his feelings towards the law, but if he think he's "all that" by publicly breaking the law and bragging about it by posting videos and such, then what does he really expect?

Even after all that, it's a SUSPENDED sentence (Really, @Prans, you should probably highlight that.)

I would say he gets what he deserves for breaking the law. The fact that he doesn't agree with the law doesn't give him the right to break it.

Agreed misleading title. Some people and I think they are probably privileged/entitled feeling, think they can break laws they don't agree with. You can't. You need to fight the law in a legal way. Being a "vlogger" he likely never expected the law would turn against him. If he were a black american he'd know better.

I don't know if it's because I was born in a country founded by rebellion, but I think that unjust laws should be broken at every opportunity by as many people as possible. The last quote above mentions something about being a black American and I thought back to the Civil Rights movement. Does history remember all the blacks who followed the Jim Crow laws? Were they the ones that made a difference? No, not at all. It was the ones who openly disobeyed the evil laws that actually contributed the most to today's mostly-tolerant society.

A good modern example of unjust laws being openly broken is the State Legislatures who are in violation of Federal law by legalizing medical (and in some cases recreational) marijuana use. If it people found it an important enough issue, there would be another civil war between the States and Federal government (the first one was not truly about slavery, but about the power of the States over the Federal government).

Also, a civilized world should be based on human liberty, religion being one of the important ones. Not just freedom to have religion, but freedom FROM religion for those who do not wish to participate. No civilized nation can create laws based on the will of religious leaders and doctrines. Nor should they be able to ban all or any particular religion.

Basic human rights, people. Why is it that none of the world's governments in the entire history of mankind have been able to figure this out? Even my 4 year old daughter knows that people should be able to do what they want as long as it doesn't hurt someone else and that most people are generally good.

 

[Onepunchbruh]

...

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-blogger-pokemongo-idUSKBN1870L7

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Here is a short info.

Ruslan Sokolovsky was found guilty of inciting religious hatred after posting a video on YouTube where he is seen playing Pokemon Go on his cell phone in the church.

In the video, which contains strong language mocking Christianity, Sokolovsky likens Jesus Christ to a Pokemon character and says he had decided to play the popular game inside the church because he had seen a news report saying people who did so could be fined or jailed.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/wo...emon-church/UNCa5O99yWSwarjR39CJbM/story.html

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

His quote in the video.

‘‘But, you know, I didn’t catch the rarest Pokémon that you could find there — Jesus,’’ Sokolovsky, says at the end of a YouTube video he posted of himself playing the game. ‘‘They said it doesn’t even exist, so I’m not really surprised.’’

 

[FAST6191]

Your point? As much was said in the opening post.

That said you did remind me of a favourite comedy sketch

 

[endoverend]

Doesn't it seem like a large part of that 3.5 year sentence would be more for breaching the terms of a house arrest?

 

[Madridi]

I don't know if it's because I was born in a country founded by rebellion, but I think that unjust laws should be broken at every opportunity by as many people as possible. The last quote above mentions something about being a black American and I thought back to the Civil Rights movement. Does history remember all the blacks who followed the Jim Crow laws? Were they the ones that made a difference? No, not at all. It was the ones who openly disobeyed the evil laws that actually contributed the most to today's mostly-tolerant society.

A good modern example of unjust laws being openly broken is the State Legislatures who are in violation of Federal law by legalizing medical (and in some cases recreational) marijuana use. If it people found it an important enough issue, there would be another civil war between the States and Federal government (the first one was not truly about slavery, but about the power of the States over the Federal government).

Also, a civilized world should be based on human liberty, religion being one of the important ones. Not just freedom to have religion, but freedom FROM religion for those who do not wish to participate. No civilized nation can create laws based on the will of religious leaders and doctrines. Nor should they be able to ban all or any particular religion.

Basic human rights, people. Why is it that none of the world's governments in the entire history of mankind have been able to figure this out? Even my 4 year old daughter knows that people should be able to do what they want as long as it doesn't hurt someone else and that most people are generally good.

Without going into much detail, "unjust law" is subjective. Black Americans such as Rosa Parks or MLK were prepared to face the consequences for their actions. It was about them being slaves, treated like slaves, and beneath all people. They knew what they were doing was breaking the law, but enough was enough. Now, I hardly think a guy playing pokemon Go would receive any kind of sympathy lol. It's apples and oranges

In the end, he did a crime (regardless of whether it's a fair law or not), he breached his house arrest agreements, and simply tried to act rebellious through the whole ordeal. Result was still a suspended sentence. How can this be anymore of a slap on the wrist?

As for this particular case, like someone mentioned before on here, his action was provocative one. A church is a place of worship. Consider it as "house rules". If he does not believe in a religion, then why go there to begin with?

But anyway, to put it plain and simple: He broke the law willingly, he kept insisting on breaking them, then he should be also be prepared to face the consequences. It's as simple as that.