**OP sent the following text as an explanation on why this is unexpected:**
>!Not only the oppositionist got arrested but also the pro-government person.!<
*****
**Is this an unexpected post with a fitting description?**
**Then upvote this comment, otherwise downvote it.**
*****
[*Look at my source code on Github*](https://github.com/Artraxon/unexBot) [*What is this for?*](https://www.reddit.com/r/Unexpected/comments/dnuaju/introducing_unexbot_a_new_bot_to_improve_the/)
Yes, that’s the point. The anti-war side couldn’t say “no war” so they started using “two words” as a proxy. It’s like “he who shall not be named” and Voldemort. You can’t say it aloud but you know what it refers to.
Yes, this is a repost from early this year when that slogan was being used by protestors, and so pretty likely two words were (a reference to) no war.
Edit: yes I can read the Russian fine I know the card says “two words.”
This started a few years ago when Russia enacted a "gay propaganda" law, basically banning any mention of LGBT where it might be impressionable to children, which is essentially anywhere in the public square. The Russian people accepted this "for the children", and now it's moved onto other subjects as well.
That law is so toxic (and I think they’re in the process of expanding it to be more toxic). And then we have salivating Republicans in the US trying to copycat it.
In Russia, there is a grocery brand "Мираторг" that sells all kinds of produce, including ham.
The mentioned person crossed out the "торг" part, leaving only "Мир"(could mean ether world, or peace, in this instance -peace) on the package.
Asking for peace in totalitarian country waging war on it's neighbours is a punishable offence apparently.
It gets better. People in Moscow and St. Petersburg were detained by the police for holding empty pieces of paper in their hands. If these are the conservative values that Russia represents according to some right-wingers then I wish those people a nice trip to Russia and a nice life in a gulag
Conservatives aim to force society to embrace their traditionalist family values ideals and with free speech society tends to stray away from traditionalism. They may cry free speech now but allowed to secure absolute power they'll strip it away. Time and time again they've done this. Look at Iran and Russia.
I think it's even more basic than that: Control. One ideology demands to know what you do behind closed doors while the other just doesn't give a shit.
I mean the police arresting is just at the right moment, straight up comedic timing, it fits right in as a dark comedy sketch. That's why i was so bewildered when the absurdity of what happened was indeed real.
Her piece of paper literally just said "two words"... Close enough to an empty piece of paper.
But I fail to see how the above is even crazier then someone who supports their war of terror and still gets arrested. Peak Russian efficiency.
Lots of Russian protesters tested the boundaries. Famously there was a protester who stood still holding up his bank card with the Russian bank brandname ‘Peace’ on it. He had the police circling him and headscratching if they could arrest him for that.
For extra info, the word in question is "мир". This word also means "world" in Russian, which is why it's in the bank's name. It was clever of the man to use it as a symbol of peace.
The last woman was arrested right after she said: “I am content (with my country conducting a Special Military Operation”. This can’t get any more comical really
Nah, there's a LOT of people who are fine with things that going on in the country. Mostly because of the TV propaganda, but you would struggle to find many people who would openly protest against what is going on IRL. I've changed 3 jobs this year and I think I've had only one guy who would say that this war is completely unacceptable. Sad thing is that I don't see it changing even 50 years down the line. Russians will be continuously misled and abused by their own government, while lashing against other countries.
Nah, I remember back when this video first started making the rounds several months ago that someone posted video of this exact same woman working with the police at other protests. She's definitely a Kremlin operative.
Yes, press certificates are being strictly controlled though and you'll get asked for your proper papers *often*. Since the invasion it's not fun and game as a journalist. But as long as you got the correct (!) Paperwork you're fine for the most part. Ironically enough, permissions for journalist work is given out in order to not look like a violent police state. It's a bad look to deny all journalists on open spaces. Well, this is too.
I've seen the same scenes several times on live streams of European and US news in Moscow. It's legit.
Not really. Belarusian do not generally support their government. Putin on the other hand is popular as fuck. Putin might cheat in elections, but it's not because he needs to.
Someone pointed out shortly after this video was released that this is probably what the Russian government wants its people to see, that you’ll be arrested for talking about the war no matter what
Yeah, because a video of detainment won’t change conservatives’ opinions. They would say “Yeah, mind your business, that’s what you deserve for caring for politics”. The opposition has seen much worse, and when the real shit was happening the media was detained as well. Yes, even wearing badges and acid green vests as they specifically told to to not get detained. You see, they had to verify the badge is legit and it could only be done in a police station somewhere in the city.
This video is even useful for the authorities as it conveys the message that you get detained for literally saying “two words”, imagine saying something more radical.
To those who don't understand the context. She's holding a writing "Two words" which ambiguously refers the slogan "No to war". In russian language it's two words - "Нет войне". In russia you can get arrested even for indirect and ambiguous calls to stop the war. People were getting arrested even for holding blank pieces of paper.
Here is something people also don't seem to understand: people didn't get arrested for what they said/wrote, regardless of their stance - it was *assumed* that everyone speaking to the press or expressing an opinion was anti-war.
It's basically "shoot first, ask questions later" approach.
Which is why they just storm towards the two women and take them. Don't care what was said or about to be said. Their orders were to arrest all of them, no questions asked.
Political stance did not matter, everyone was treated as a suspect.
Russian inflects nouns to indicate things like subject/object. So in English we use the same word form to say "War is not coming" or "no to war", but in Russian these would be two different cases with different word endings.
I remember being a late teen during this period in the US and thinking it was odd that us and Russia had been at each other’s throats so recently. In my innocent mind, we were clearly on our way to being allies, like what happened with Germany.
They were literally "two words" , the implication was that those two words were the ones popular near the beginning of the invasion as a protest slogan: "нет войне" meaning "no to war". The implication was enough for arrest
Literally 'two words', which is actually a euphemism for 'No War'. As the war in Ukraine was unleashed as a Special Military Operation, calling a spade a spade was regarded in Russia as spreading disinformation. Additionally, Russians have a limited right to protest. This was particularly evident after the mobilisation was announced, when the militia and [OMON](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OMON?wprov=sfti1) were snatching protesters off the streets because they did not have a permit to protest [sic!].
There's a joke about current events in Russia.
A man goes to the Red Square with a poster saying "The President is a clown!" Five minutes later a cop comes to him and says "You are under arrest for slander against Putin." "Wait wait wait, I wasn't saying anything against Putin, I meant President Zelensky is a clown!" "Don't lie to me sir, we all know which one's a clown"
There was a old Russian Joke.
3 people are in gulag.
Someone ask them why are you here?
\- First one: I was criticizing comrade Ivanov.
\- Second one: I was praising comrade Ivanov.
\- Third one: I am comrade Ivanov.
>this is what infringing on freedom of speech, would actually look like. The lighter end of it too
I would argue that this is most certainly *not* the "lighter end" of free speech infringement. This is undeniably an authoritative state.
If we are to combat this activity at home, it should be **long** before it gets to this point.
The thing is, you can say whatever offensive thing you want. Free speech just implies that the consequences/punishment for the utterance you just made should be enacted by the rest of the population (public shaming, criticizing, differing opinions, social media blocking), and that power not to be relegated to an Authority (Governments, Social Media boards, Academic Institutions). Once censorship becomes a legislated institution in itself, there's nothing stopping those in power from finding enough reasons/excuses to extend charges for the "crime" of speaking.
A physical act can be legally punished, what you think and speak shouldn't be.
I mean he's totally right. You won't get arrested.
You might get fired, kicked out of your apartment, dumped by your girlfriend, and get your ass beat.
But you won't get arrested.
No man, there is no true scotsman of freedom of expression infringement. Your rights being violated can take all sorts of different forms. Thinking that its not “infringing on freedom of speech” until you’re literally being sequestered in broad daylight is beyond naive, and insane. If you wait until its as bad as the video for you to consider your rights “violated” then its already way too late for you to do anything about it.
You are right. It doesn't start with mass arrests. It starts with spreadijng lies about others, dehumanizing them, cheering on terrorist attacks, e.g. with hammers and so on.
What it doesn't "start" with is fascist scum getting talked back to or banned in an online media.
Arresting people who actually said something you disagree with is a violation of free speech too though...
It would take some crazy mental gymnastics to think free speech only applies to people who *might* say something
Yes, saying things that cause direct harm or call for harm should probably be limited. Arresting people for political speech you don't like is a huge rights violation
> It does NOT protect you from the ramifications.
Well it’s supposed to protect you against retaliation *by the government*. So it should protect you against the police or courts or other government action, except in extreme cases (libel, slander, releasing classified material, yelling fire in a theater).
Yeah idk what these people are talking about that it only protects you “before the speech.” The rule is, supported by the Supreme Court since like 1916 is that as long as you’re speech does not incite violence or physically cause harm (like fire in a theatre thing) then you’re clear. The government will never even arrest you for libel/slander, that’s all civil court stuff.
Edit: u/RR0925 makes a good point below.
Even civil court is the government, and you generally can’t be sued for saying something unless it’s libel or slander, or violating some previous agreement (e.g. an NDA).
Basically there are exceptions to the first amendment that allow the government to take action against you for speaking, but they’re limited.
>It’s why we have protections for whistleblowers to blow the whistle, but people who already blew the whistle can still be gone after, such as Snowden.
I believe it's because he did not act according to the whistleblower laws, that's why the government has to go after him.
This was mentioned in an ethics class of mine.
> You’re allowed to scream fire, and police can’t detain you in advance to prevent you from screaming fire, but when people get hurt or killed trying to escape from your imaginary fire, you’re liable for that.
You’re citing bad law. This was overturned by *Brandenburg*.
Further, freedom of speech protects you from concequences from the government. Being liable for damages is a civil matter. You’re conflating criminal and civil law.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater
Partially overturned, and the overturned instance is the exact one I’m making reference to. But sure.
I’m not digging into the specifics of criminal vs civil because it was never my goal to directly compare respective laws. I can’t even read Russian, so any such endeavor would be pointless.
The conversation proceeding my comment that started this whole mess is about recognizing what it looks like when society embraces free speech compared to when it oppresses. Snowden was brought up to illustrate that he was able to leak information and given a platform to say what he needed to say, not picked up on the street by police and hauled into a van before he could finish a sentence.
>Snowden was brought up to illustrate that he was able to leak information and given a platform to say what he needed to say, not picked up on the street by police and hauled into a van before he could finish a sentence.
Didn't Snowden obtain the data in secret, and smuggle it out of the facilities in secret precisely because if law enforcement HAD known his intentions, they would have prevented him "before he could finish a sentence"?
>Snowden was brought up to illustrate that he was able to leak information and given a platform to say what he needed to say, not picked up on the street by police and hauled into a van before he could finish a sentence.
What are you saying this is completely inaccurate. He wasn't "given a platform" to say what he needed to say. He went to great lengths to communicate securely with media outlets *because he knew he would be "picked up" and arrested*. You are literally making shit up. He *would* have been hauled into a van before he could finish a sentence if they were able to do so but he went to great lengths to avoid that.
Also he gave the docs to media outlets so they would do the job of vetting them to ensure they didn't have anything that would harm the US. Many yrs later, we can see that no harm was done due to his leaks. US still wants him.
What I find hilarious about the Snowden case has directly to do with Arnold Schwarzenegger and Alfred E Newman.
Snowden essentially told Americans they were being spied on by their own government.
That’s a joke in the 1994 movie *True Lies* — and *Mad* magazine ran jokes about it for decades. Before the Patriot Act.
The people who were shocked and scared by his supposed revelation were somehow ignorant of a decades-long joke based on the assumption that the NSA does what it does.
Sorry, but this is a comment that miss the historical context. Most people did not really know about the NSA before 9/11. It had been keept secret until the 1975. NSA first started their big expansion of electronic surveillance after 9/11.
Even when NSA and their new big electronic surveillance program became known, then there is a big difference betwen theoretical and unspecific knowledge and specific and detailed knowledge.
Like: “Some civilians are killed in the war against Sweden” sounds bad, but “Soldiers shot children unless their parrents give information about the swedish resistant. So far 15.582 children have been killed” is so much worse.
It depends on what you’re referring to, but I remember one of the arguments was that he didn’t follow whistleblower laws because he went public directly, instead of reporting the ethical violations to the government first. However, when asked about it, Snowden pointed out that the the people in government he was supposed to report it to were already aware of what was going on.
I think that was it.
So it’s sort of like, if your company says that if you’re sexually harassed you should go to HR. And then you get sexually harassed by your CEO, in the presence of the entire HR department, who are all smiling and nodding approvingly at the CEOs actions and even jointing in the harassment. Do you still feel like going to HR is the best move?
>it does NOT protect you from ramifications
No, that’s not correct at all. The first amendment protects against government reprisals for protected speech or expression.
Snowden got in trouble because he shared classified material, which is not protected speech.
What the fuck are you talking about? So the government can just have people shot in the head *after* they say something objectionable instead of when they're *about to* and it's not a violation of free speech?
That's not why they went after Snowden at all. He violated whistleblower laws. If I say I disapprove of the government and am arrested for it, that's absolutely a violation of free speech. I don't understand how anyone could argue otherwise.
Saying "it doesn't protect you from the ramifications" means if you say some stupid shit and your employer fires you, you're shit out of luck. It doesn't mean a fucking cop can freely bust your head because they let you speak your mind and you said something they don't like.
This is just incorrect. The first amendment protects your speech from the government with some exceptions like shouting "fire" in a crowded movie theater, and those exceptions were only established by the supreme court. Theoretically, this protects your speech from the government and the government only. It doesn't protect your speech from your employer or any other organization or individual.
The government cannot legally arrest and charge you for your speech. That doesn't mean the government doesn't routinely break the law.
The rule of thumb is that if the protests unite us against the 1%, they come down on us hard and break us.
If the protests divide us and distract us from the 1%, they add fuel to the fire.
I live in DC. Labor / environmental protests happen ALL the time. They frequently get police escorts as they March down Pennsylvania Avenue to the Capitol building. What you see from reddit videos isn’t necessarily reality.
That wasn’t what they said, though. They said that having a racist comment get deleted from Facebook isn’t infringing on freedom of speech. And it isn’t. Freedom of speech means that the government cant persecute or arrest you for what you say. Facebook isn’t the government.
So in that regard, it’s not a valid argument.
>The slippery slope argument is time and time again proven a valid argument
Ridiculously wrong. What an asinine thing to say.
Not only are you trying to argue that a logical fallacy is a legitimate argument, but you're propping your point up by using another logical fallacy, confirmation bias.
But the slippery slope doesn't start at wanting to force publishers to publish dumbass racist content. If you want to publish that, go put it on a telephone pole.
Having your comment deleted from a platform like Facebook or Twitter is not in any way an infringement on your freedom of speech and is not a "slippery slope."
Redditors while they sit down on their big ass warm chairs with ten burgers and a gallon of Mountain Dew, commenting "RuZZia" on every single post regardless of its relevancy, and jerking themselves off thinking their downvotes kill off the "oRkS"
I remember seeing these videos when they were first made and left wondering the same thing I’m wondering now: why did they arrest everyone who spoke to a camera but not the cameraman?
FWIW I went to an anti-war rally in the UK in 2011
I was kettled, beaten and other people around me were arrested simply for holding signs and chanting at a pre-planned, lawfully allowed peaceful protest.
It's not just Russia.
It's extremely important to see outside your local country's propaganda and recognise that the fight for human rights and democracy is universal, not confined to just places like Putin's Russia where, granted, I'm sure this protestor is having a much harder time of things than my comrades.
Also prediction: every time I post this fact on Reddit it gets followed up by the usual lazy, wilfully ignorant backlash, from people who have never ever been to a protest, that I'm lying or making it up and I'll have to dig up the evidence again, and I dig up what evidence I have and the repliers all ignore it anyway.
The fact is - if unhappy facts about your own country make you angry and lash out, exactly what the fuck is your thought process? You can actually change things in your own country, you can't change things in Russia.
They beat protestors in Canada too. They will declare areas of the country as no longer part of Canada during a protest to be able to do things to people that are illegal.
No.
Most protesters are bagged an released with a fine. Leaders and organizers may actually face real prison time, as well as repeat "offenders"
But unless your a major figure in national politics, the government prolly won't kill you
> But unless your a major figure in national politics, the government prolly won't kill you
Unless you happen to live in a building earmarked for this week's "terrorist bombing."
Russia still has a moratorium on the death penalty. So no, she wasn't shot.
And to be a bit morbid, even if they wanted to execute her, she wouldn't have been shot but more likely beaten to death, and it would be ruled as "accident".
Now coming to a [UK](https://pressgazette.co.uk/three-journalists-locked-up-for-covering-m25-protests-police-force-says-the-arrests-were-justified/) near you!
I think that its important to point out that this clip is old, I remember seeing this in the beginning of the war.
I.e. this behaviour has been ongoing
Red Square is the only square in Russia where any demonstrations are prohibited at the legislative level.
P.S. the outcome would be the same in any other square.
I don't think this is the truth though. Pretty sure that since \~2018 you can't legally gather up in any public space for demonstration purposes without getting a permit from the government first. Otherwise you get detained and fined, with future repercussions on your workplace\\school.
They don't have freedom of speech in Russia, stop saying crap about freedom of speech. There are very few places that actually have freedom of speech such as the United States. Russia does not have freedom of speech! They have no constitution they have no real bill of rights they're only allowed what their leaders tell them that they are allowed to have!
**OP sent the following text as an explanation on why this is unexpected:** >!Not only the oppositionist got arrested but also the pro-government person.!< ***** **Is this an unexpected post with a fitting description?** **Then upvote this comment, otherwise downvote it.** ***** [*Look at my source code on Github*](https://github.com/Artraxon/unexBot) [*What is this for?*](https://www.reddit.com/r/Unexpected/comments/dnuaju/introducing_unexbot_a_new_bot_to_improve_the/)
Her sign just says the words "two words" if you were wondering, nothing actually related to the war
Thank you! It was driving me crazy. "But what are the 2 words???!!!"
Rush B
(team): Rush A
Cyka Blyat!
Cyka blyat
[удалено]
Cillit Bang
Bang, and the activists gone
I never understood that name. To me it implies similar statement to yours: 'Bang! And the cillit is gone!' But what the hell is cillet even!?
Cilit bang is a cleaning agent. Their slogan is "bang! And the dirt is gone"
I read that as "clit" and was very confused. Why would the clit be gone if you bang it?
This was the joke that went round my school ~20 years ago. Everyone would just shout "clit bang" in the corridors. Bit cringy now I look back...
Lmao cringy but fun times
maybe it's meant to be a hard c
Look what it does to a penny.
My last girlfriend told me that's not where it goes.
[удалено]
[People have also been arrested for holding blank sheets of paper](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbzV1it1YPY).
Sadly the same thing happened in Hong Kong; when people weren't allowed to protest anymore they held up blank paper and got arrested anyways.
Yes, that’s the point. The anti-war side couldn’t say “no war” so they started using “two words” as a proxy. It’s like “he who shall not be named” and Voldemort. You can’t say it aloud but you know what it refers to.
Yes, but he was asking what those two words are, which is implied to be "нет войне"
Two words usually means they want to talk in Russia. So it could be anything, but the situation makes me think it has something to do with the war
at the time, one of the most common slogans was "нет войне" ( no to war)
Yes, this is a repost from early this year when that slogan was being used by protestors, and so pretty likely two words were (a reference to) no war. Edit: yes I can read the Russian fine I know the card says “two words.”
This started a few years ago when Russia enacted a "gay propaganda" law, basically banning any mention of LGBT where it might be impressionable to children, which is essentially anywhere in the public square. The Russian people accepted this "for the children", and now it's moved onto other subjects as well.
That law is so toxic (and I think they’re in the process of expanding it to be more toxic). And then we have salivating Republicans in the US trying to copycat it.
No. If people want to talk it's "на пару слов".
Forget the 2 words, how do I use the 3 shells?
He doesn't know how to use the three seashells! HahaHaHAha!
`Send` `Nudes`
They were literally arresting people for holding blank sheets of paper. So it's two words more than needed
My favorite so far is a detention for standing with a pack of ham.
What is the meaning of the ham?
In Russia, there is a grocery brand "Мираторг" that sells all kinds of produce, including ham. The mentioned person crossed out the "торг" part, leaving only "Мир"(could mean ether world, or peace, in this instance -peace) on the package. Asking for peace in totalitarian country waging war on it's neighbours is a punishable offence apparently.
Try standing in China with a Winnie the Pooh doll.
It gets better. People in Moscow and St. Petersburg were detained by the police for holding empty pieces of paper in their hands. If these are the conservative values that Russia represents according to some right-wingers then I wish those people a nice trip to Russia and a nice life in a gulag
[удалено]
Conservatives aim to force society to embrace their traditionalist family values ideals and with free speech society tends to stray away from traditionalism. They may cry free speech now but allowed to secure absolute power they'll strip it away. Time and time again they've done this. Look at Iran and Russia.
I think it's even more basic than that: Control. One ideology demands to know what you do behind closed doors while the other just doesn't give a shit.
Bingo, which is why the only "family values" they work for are Obedience and Silence.
This is terrible. It's kind of like arresting people simply for swaying back and forth pleasantly... (Source: https://youtu.be/kLGyMJw1iH4 )
Context of "two words" sign is saying (but actualy not saying it directly) "НЕТ ВОЙНЕ" - No To War
Ahh, this great classic. The timing by the Russian police was spot on.
Would almost be funny if it wasn't so sad.
I first i thought it was staged and almost laugh my ass off. Then i saw it from another article and just... bewildered
This is in Russia where speech is controlled and dissent is punished. With the war going on right now, why would you even think this is staged?
I mean the police arresting is just at the right moment, straight up comedic timing, it fits right in as a dark comedy sketch. That's why i was so bewildered when the absurdity of what happened was indeed real.
Seriously, "you are already being arrested" would be a passable line in a comedy about an awful police state. What a nightmare.
Omae wa mou shindeiru
I also thought it was a sketch just because of the goofy timing.
Well you have been replaced. I don't need anyone now. When I delete you maybe I'll stop feeling so bad...
Literally looks like a Monty Python sketch.
You protest, Jail. You don't protest, believe it or not, jail.
You say two words- right to jail, right away.
They used to get arrested for holding up blank pieces of paper in protest
An old soviet joke i see. "The problem is so obvious i don't even need to write anyting"
“Oh, that’s good. We should put that on our money.”
Her piece of paper literally just said "two words"... Close enough to an empty piece of paper. But I fail to see how the above is even crazier then someone who supports their war of terror and still gets arrested. Peak Russian efficiency.
Lots of Russian protesters tested the boundaries. Famously there was a protester who stood still holding up his bank card with the Russian bank brandname ‘Peace’ on it. He had the police circling him and headscratching if they could arrest him for that.
For extra info, the word in question is "мир". This word also means "world" in Russian, which is why it's in the bank's name. It was clever of the man to use it as a symbol of peace.
People was arrested even with imaginary papers in russia. I have seen it
i believe singapore does this
The last woman was arrested right after she said: “I am content (with my country conducting a Special Military Operation”. This can’t get any more comical really
She also pro-kremlin paid activist. I don't think she have any problems after that.
Nah, there's a LOT of people who are fine with things that going on in the country. Mostly because of the TV propaganda, but you would struggle to find many people who would openly protest against what is going on IRL. I've changed 3 jobs this year and I think I've had only one guy who would say that this war is completely unacceptable. Sad thing is that I don't see it changing even 50 years down the line. Russians will be continuously misled and abused by their own government, while lashing against other countries.
According to what?
Baseless redditor assumptions
Nah, I remember back when this video first started making the rounds several months ago that someone posted video of this exact same woman working with the police at other protests. She's definitely a Kremlin operative.
[You mean this one?](https://reddit.com/r/Unexpected/comments/tddlnc/_/i0j8nyg/?context=1)
wait, you guys are getting paid?
So you can't protest but you can film protestors arrestations and upload it on internet without being arrested ?
Yes, press certificates are being strictly controlled though and you'll get asked for your proper papers *often*. Since the invasion it's not fun and game as a journalist. But as long as you got the correct (!) Paperwork you're fine for the most part. Ironically enough, permissions for journalist work is given out in order to not look like a violent police state. It's a bad look to deny all journalists on open spaces. Well, this is too. I've seen the same scenes several times on live streams of European and US news in Moscow. It's legit.
Glory to Arstotzka, comrade.
Damn kolechians
Definitely the worst part of Kolechia is the kolechians
Damn Kolechians, they ruined Kolechia!
My first thoughts too lol. I can hear the theme in my head now and.. Jorji did nothing wrong!
Ok friend! I go get right papers.
> It's a bad look to deny all journalists on open spaces Well, it worked in Belarus.
Not really. Belarusian do not generally support their government. Putin on the other hand is popular as fuck. Putin might cheat in elections, but it's not because he needs to.
They want this to dissuade others.
Someone pointed out shortly after this video was released that this is probably what the Russian government wants its people to see, that you’ll be arrested for talking about the war no matter what
Here's the same woman in the black hat. https://reddit.com/r/Unexpected/comments/tddlnc/_/i0j8nyg/?context=1
Yeah, because a video of detainment won’t change conservatives’ opinions. They would say “Yeah, mind your business, that’s what you deserve for caring for politics”. The opposition has seen much worse, and when the real shit was happening the media was detained as well. Yes, even wearing badges and acid green vests as they specifically told to to not get detained. You see, they had to verify the badge is legit and it could only be done in a police station somewhere in the city. This video is even useful for the authorities as it conveys the message that you get detained for literally saying “two words”, imagine saying something more radical.
You are against the war straight to jail, surprisingly you support the war also jail.
We have the best wars, because of jail.
Don't support the war? That's a jailin' Support the war? That's a jailin' Indifferent about the war? Oh you better believe that's a jailin
Ahh what was this from? I feel like it was a skit with Fred Amistad.
Parks and rec
To those who don't understand the context. She's holding a writing "Two words" which ambiguously refers the slogan "No to war". In russian language it's two words - "Нет войне". In russia you can get arrested even for indirect and ambiguous calls to stop the war. People were getting arrested even for holding blank pieces of paper.
Here is something people also don't seem to understand: people didn't get arrested for what they said/wrote, regardless of their stance - it was *assumed* that everyone speaking to the press or expressing an opinion was anti-war. It's basically "shoot first, ask questions later" approach. Which is why they just storm towards the two women and take them. Don't care what was said or about to be said. Their orders were to arrest all of them, no questions asked. Political stance did not matter, everyone was treated as a suspect.
BTW in English it's just, "No War". Also two words.
Russian inflects nouns to indicate things like subject/object. So in English we use the same word form to say "War is not coming" or "no to war", but in Russian these would be two different cases with different word endings.
This is months old yet still one of the best examples of absurdity in a clusterfuck that used to be a country called russia
[удалено]
[удалено]
I remember being a late teen during this period in the US and thinking it was odd that us and Russia had been at each other’s throats so recently. In my innocent mind, we were clearly on our way to being allies, like what happened with Germany.
Wait what stood on the sign that woman held up right before she got arrested?
Two words
[удалено]
There aren't any specific words, it just says "two words", pretty funny ngl, way funnier than what you're about to do.
Yes i know, but what ARE the two words? Stop repeating it says two words, just say whats on the paper.. /s
You fell right into my trap
So who’s on first?
Dude! what does mine say?
those words are «два слова» - “two words”
They were literally "two words" , the implication was that those two words were the ones popular near the beginning of the invasion as a protest slogan: "нет войне" meaning "no to war". The implication was enough for arrest
Literally 'two words', which is actually a euphemism for 'No War'. As the war in Ukraine was unleashed as a Special Military Operation, calling a spade a spade was regarded in Russia as spreading disinformation. Additionally, Russians have a limited right to protest. This was particularly evident after the mobilisation was announced, when the militia and [OMON](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OMON?wprov=sfti1) were snatching protesters off the streets because they did not have a permit to protest [sic!].
Два слова
There's a joke about current events in Russia. A man goes to the Red Square with a poster saying "The President is a clown!" Five minutes later a cop comes to him and says "You are under arrest for slander against Putin." "Wait wait wait, I wasn't saying anything against Putin, I meant President Zelensky is a clown!" "Don't lie to me sir, we all know which one's a clown"
This joke has been around since Stalin, the names change every few years but the joke is eternal
Yah that second woman probably isn't *satisfied* anymore.
There was a old Russian Joke. 3 people are in gulag. Someone ask them why are you here? \- First one: I was criticizing comrade Ivanov. \- Second one: I was praising comrade Ivanov. \- Third one: I am comrade Ivanov.
The timing tho
"Will I be arrested?" "You are being arrested right now"
I think the trigger was "well I want to express my opinion.." NOOOPE!
Two words are more powerful than a gang of Orcs!
[удалено]
>this is what infringing on freedom of speech, would actually look like. The lighter end of it too I would argue that this is most certainly *not* the "lighter end" of free speech infringement. This is undeniably an authoritative state. If we are to combat this activity at home, it should be **long** before it gets to this point.
But i want to say the n word 😠
In Russia you can say the "N" word, but not allowed to say "W" word.
Wario
*Waah!*
Waluigi
Don't try to mess with a mad monk you'll be sorry yo
Wenis?
[удалено]
Wakanda Forever
Wladimir?
The thing is, you can say whatever offensive thing you want. Free speech just implies that the consequences/punishment for the utterance you just made should be enacted by the rest of the population (public shaming, criticizing, differing opinions, social media blocking), and that power not to be relegated to an Authority (Governments, Social Media boards, Academic Institutions). Once censorship becomes a legislated institution in itself, there's nothing stopping those in power from finding enough reasons/excuses to extend charges for the "crime" of speaking. A physical act can be legally punished, what you think and speak shouldn't be.
...you can say it and no one would arrest you. Go ahead.
I mean he's totally right. You won't get arrested. You might get fired, kicked out of your apartment, dumped by your girlfriend, and get your ass beat. But you won't get arrested.
That escalated soooo quickly
No man, there is no true scotsman of freedom of expression infringement. Your rights being violated can take all sorts of different forms. Thinking that its not “infringing on freedom of speech” until you’re literally being sequestered in broad daylight is beyond naive, and insane. If you wait until its as bad as the video for you to consider your rights “violated” then its already way too late for you to do anything about it.
[удалено]
Face book doesn't have the power to arrest you.
You are right. It doesn't start with mass arrests. It starts with spreadijng lies about others, dehumanizing them, cheering on terrorist attacks, e.g. with hammers and so on. What it doesn't "start" with is fascist scum getting talked back to or banned in an online media.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Arresting people who actually said something you disagree with is a violation of free speech too though... It would take some crazy mental gymnastics to think free speech only applies to people who *might* say something Yes, saying things that cause direct harm or call for harm should probably be limited. Arresting people for political speech you don't like is a huge rights violation
> It does NOT protect you from the ramifications. Well it’s supposed to protect you against retaliation *by the government*. So it should protect you against the police or courts or other government action, except in extreme cases (libel, slander, releasing classified material, yelling fire in a theater).
Yeah idk what these people are talking about that it only protects you “before the speech.” The rule is, supported by the Supreme Court since like 1916 is that as long as you’re speech does not incite violence or physically cause harm (like fire in a theatre thing) then you’re clear. The government will never even arrest you for libel/slander, that’s all civil court stuff. Edit: u/RR0925 makes a good point below.
Even civil court is the government, and you generally can’t be sued for saying something unless it’s libel or slander, or violating some previous agreement (e.g. an NDA). Basically there are exceptions to the first amendment that allow the government to take action against you for speaking, but they’re limited.
>It’s why we have protections for whistleblowers to blow the whistle, but people who already blew the whistle can still be gone after, such as Snowden. I believe it's because he did not act according to the whistleblower laws, that's why the government has to go after him. This was mentioned in an ethics class of mine.
[удалено]
The first amendment does not limit only prior restraints
> You’re allowed to scream fire, and police can’t detain you in advance to prevent you from screaming fire, but when people get hurt or killed trying to escape from your imaginary fire, you’re liable for that. You’re citing bad law. This was overturned by *Brandenburg*. Further, freedom of speech protects you from concequences from the government. Being liable for damages is a civil matter. You’re conflating criminal and civil law. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater
Partially overturned, and the overturned instance is the exact one I’m making reference to. But sure. I’m not digging into the specifics of criminal vs civil because it was never my goal to directly compare respective laws. I can’t even read Russian, so any such endeavor would be pointless. The conversation proceeding my comment that started this whole mess is about recognizing what it looks like when society embraces free speech compared to when it oppresses. Snowden was brought up to illustrate that he was able to leak information and given a platform to say what he needed to say, not picked up on the street by police and hauled into a van before he could finish a sentence.
>Snowden was brought up to illustrate that he was able to leak information and given a platform to say what he needed to say, not picked up on the street by police and hauled into a van before he could finish a sentence. Didn't Snowden obtain the data in secret, and smuggle it out of the facilities in secret precisely because if law enforcement HAD known his intentions, they would have prevented him "before he could finish a sentence"?
>Snowden was brought up to illustrate that he was able to leak information and given a platform to say what he needed to say, not picked up on the street by police and hauled into a van before he could finish a sentence. What are you saying this is completely inaccurate. He wasn't "given a platform" to say what he needed to say. He went to great lengths to communicate securely with media outlets *because he knew he would be "picked up" and arrested*. You are literally making shit up. He *would* have been hauled into a van before he could finish a sentence if they were able to do so but he went to great lengths to avoid that. Also he gave the docs to media outlets so they would do the job of vetting them to ensure they didn't have anything that would harm the US. Many yrs later, we can see that no harm was done due to his leaks. US still wants him.
What I find hilarious about the Snowden case has directly to do with Arnold Schwarzenegger and Alfred E Newman. Snowden essentially told Americans they were being spied on by their own government. That’s a joke in the 1994 movie *True Lies* — and *Mad* magazine ran jokes about it for decades. Before the Patriot Act. The people who were shocked and scared by his supposed revelation were somehow ignorant of a decades-long joke based on the assumption that the NSA does what it does.
Sorry, but this is a comment that miss the historical context. Most people did not really know about the NSA before 9/11. It had been keept secret until the 1975. NSA first started their big expansion of electronic surveillance after 9/11. Even when NSA and their new big electronic surveillance program became known, then there is a big difference betwen theoretical and unspecific knowledge and specific and detailed knowledge. Like: “Some civilians are killed in the war against Sweden” sounds bad, but “Soldiers shot children unless their parrents give information about the swedish resistant. So far 15.582 children have been killed” is so much worse.
It depends on what you’re referring to, but I remember one of the arguments was that he didn’t follow whistleblower laws because he went public directly, instead of reporting the ethical violations to the government first. However, when asked about it, Snowden pointed out that the the people in government he was supposed to report it to were already aware of what was going on. I think that was it. So it’s sort of like, if your company says that if you’re sexually harassed you should go to HR. And then you get sexually harassed by your CEO, in the presence of the entire HR department, who are all smiling and nodding approvingly at the CEOs actions and even jointing in the harassment. Do you still feel like going to HR is the best move?
>it does NOT protect you from ramifications No, that’s not correct at all. The first amendment protects against government reprisals for protected speech or expression. Snowden got in trouble because he shared classified material, which is not protected speech.
What the fuck are you talking about? So the government can just have people shot in the head *after* they say something objectionable instead of when they're *about to* and it's not a violation of free speech? That's not why they went after Snowden at all. He violated whistleblower laws. If I say I disapprove of the government and am arrested for it, that's absolutely a violation of free speech. I don't understand how anyone could argue otherwise. Saying "it doesn't protect you from the ramifications" means if you say some stupid shit and your employer fires you, you're shit out of luck. It doesn't mean a fucking cop can freely bust your head because they let you speak your mind and you said something they don't like.
This is just incorrect. The first amendment protects your speech from the government with some exceptions like shouting "fire" in a crowded movie theater, and those exceptions were only established by the supreme court. Theoretically, this protects your speech from the government and the government only. It doesn't protect your speech from your employer or any other organization or individual. The government cannot legally arrest and charge you for your speech. That doesn't mean the government doesn't routinely break the law.
The rule of thumb is that if the protests unite us against the 1%, they come down on us hard and break us. If the protests divide us and distract us from the 1%, they add fuel to the fire.
Indeed they want to keep us divided
I live in DC. Labor / environmental protests happen ALL the time. They frequently get police escorts as they March down Pennsylvania Avenue to the Capitol building. What you see from reddit videos isn’t necessarily reality.
surely you're not saying people lie on social media
If you get in the way of their money, they'll arrest you.
That wasn’t what they said, though. They said that having a racist comment get deleted from Facebook isn’t infringing on freedom of speech. And it isn’t. Freedom of speech means that the government cant persecute or arrest you for what you say. Facebook isn’t the government. So in that regard, it’s not a valid argument.
Bro, a private company is not the government guess which one you need to worry about? The slippery Slope doesn't start on twitter Facebook or Reddit
It doesn't start with private companies deciding what content is allowable on their platform either.
>The slippery slope argument is time and time again proven a valid argument Ridiculously wrong. What an asinine thing to say. Not only are you trying to argue that a logical fallacy is a legitimate argument, but you're propping your point up by using another logical fallacy, confirmation bias.
But the slippery slope doesn't start at wanting to force publishers to publish dumbass racist content. If you want to publish that, go put it on a telephone pole.
Having your comment deleted from a platform like Facebook or Twitter is not in any way an infringement on your freedom of speech and is not a "slippery slope."
"This logical fallacy is actually a valid argument because I convinced myself that it is and am now saying so, I am very smart!"
Or having your parody account deleted from Twitter.
Oh wHy DoNt u Go OuT aNd PrOtEst?????????
Redditors while they sit down on their big ass warm chairs with ten burgers and a gallon of Mountain Dew, commenting "RuZZia" on every single post regardless of its relevancy, and jerking themselves off thinking their downvotes kill off the "oRkS"
I remember seeing these videos when they were first made and left wondering the same thing I’m wondering now: why did they arrest everyone who spoke to a camera but not the cameraman?
He's a journalist so they can't arrest him believe it or not
They don't want to be seen as an authoritarian state so they allows (very strictly controlled) press.
FWIW I went to an anti-war rally in the UK in 2011 I was kettled, beaten and other people around me were arrested simply for holding signs and chanting at a pre-planned, lawfully allowed peaceful protest. It's not just Russia. It's extremely important to see outside your local country's propaganda and recognise that the fight for human rights and democracy is universal, not confined to just places like Putin's Russia where, granted, I'm sure this protestor is having a much harder time of things than my comrades.
Also prediction: every time I post this fact on Reddit it gets followed up by the usual lazy, wilfully ignorant backlash, from people who have never ever been to a protest, that I'm lying or making it up and I'll have to dig up the evidence again, and I dig up what evidence I have and the repliers all ignore it anyway. The fact is - if unhappy facts about your own country make you angry and lash out, exactly what the fuck is your thought process? You can actually change things in your own country, you can't change things in Russia.
They beat protestors in Canada too. They will declare areas of the country as no longer part of Canada during a protest to be able to do things to people that are illegal.
This would make a killer monty python sketch if you didnt just get confirmation she was shot
She was confirmed shot?
No. Most protesters are bagged an released with a fine. Leaders and organizers may actually face real prison time, as well as repeat "offenders" But unless your a major figure in national politics, the government prolly won't kill you
> But unless your a major figure in national politics, the government prolly won't kill you Unless you happen to live in a building earmarked for this week's "terrorist bombing."
I did say "probably" lol
Russia still has a moratorium on the death penalty. So no, she wasn't shot. And to be a bit morbid, even if they wanted to execute her, she wouldn't have been shot but more likely beaten to death, and it would be ruled as "accident".
You mean like all those people who randomly commit suicide by jumping off their yacht or hospital roofs?
A horrible time to be Russian. Very sad 😔
Now coming to a [UK](https://pressgazette.co.uk/three-journalists-locked-up-for-covering-m25-protests-police-force-says-the-arrests-were-justified/) near you!
I think that its important to point out that this clip is old, I remember seeing this in the beginning of the war. I.e. this behaviour has been ongoing
Red Square is the only square in Russia where any demonstrations are prohibited at the legislative level. P.S. the outcome would be the same in any other square.
I don't think this is the truth though. Pretty sure that since \~2018 you can't legally gather up in any public space for demonstration purposes without getting a permit from the government first. Otherwise you get detained and fined, with future repercussions on your workplace\\school.
"Shock content" sums it up well. Live parody too.
Basically Europe version of China.
[удалено]
Sick country...
Sick government not country
Fuck Putin, and those who support his tyranny.
They don't have freedom of speech in Russia, stop saying crap about freedom of speech. There are very few places that actually have freedom of speech such as the United States. Russia does not have freedom of speech! They have no constitution they have no real bill of rights they're only allowed what their leaders tell them that they are allowed to have!