[WS:] Could not that be written in a different context, or perhaps could not she just change her mind? Logical consistency is limited to a single frame of reference, and people frame different issue differently, hence they are seldom consistent across different frames.
I can easily see how one can defend a "naive" act of a member of historically under-privileged group in one society, and criticize a "naive" act of a member of a historically privileged group in another, and think that there is no contradiction between the two. But even if there were contradiction, then so what? Can't people simply change their minds, or perhaps be unsure and try different takes on a situation?
I think the PR's shtick was rather silly and provocative, but as such it is well grounded in the avant garde culture of Eastern Europe. Iv'e done tricks of a similar nature when I was a student there, complete with urinating into holy water in churches or staging mock 'wars' in museums and art galleries to shake up the conventional respectability a bit. From that pov, PR act has a long time-honored tradition of EE intelligentsia pissing on the heads of the conventional society. I can see it as either a good thing or a bad thing, depending on the context - not just the context in which the pissing occurs, but also the context from which I am observing it. If I currently lived in Russia, the chances are I would be very supportive of it, but living in the US and seeing how this act is used by bourgeois media in the US and EU makes me think twice.
But in any case, I think a prison sentence for what they did is way over the head. Back in the day, the worst we could face for stunts like that was administrative court that could impose only fines but not jail terms. The fines varied very little in these courts - they were roughly equal to average monthly wage (PLN 4,000 if memory serves) and uniformly applied to all cases referred to them. These courts processed cases en masse, 10 minutes per case or so, so there was always a large "audience" in the room waiting for their turn. One day, a good friend of mine decided to use that as a platform to mock this form of "justice" when he was referred there for some minor prank. After being asked by the magistrate what he had to say in his defense (the guilt was not even an issue, the accused could only plead for lenience) he made a long-winded speech how his "vile acts" betrayed the trust of the socialist society causing great harm to socialism, yada, yada, yada, and then asked the "high tribunal" to give him the maximum punishment - the death penalty. The audience in the room rolled on the floor with laughter, but the "high tribunal" was unmoved and meted out the standard fine of PLN 4,000.
-- Wojtek
"An anarchist is a neoliberal without money."