"How many years would some punks get who made a free speech point by (symbolically) shitting on the altar of the National Cathedral in Washington DC?"

"... The hypocrisy displayed by western officialdom in the Pussy Riot case stinks to high heaven. All of those governments who condemned the sentence would themselves argue for harsh sentences if a similar act would happen in one of their countries. They are also not, as one can see above, staunch supporters of free speech when that free speech is against their ruling interests.
As for my opinion on the Pussy Riot case. Basic rights include free speech and freedom of religion. Sometimes basic rights collide with each other and a judgement has to be made about the borders between those rights. Freedom of religion includes the freedom to have a religion and the freedom to have places for undisturbed worship.
Here is the unedited version of the Pussy Riot "performance" in the Christ the Saviour's Church in Moscow. Here is the version edited and dubbed by Pussy Riot, the only version western media will show you. Watch and let me know if you find such behavior acceptable.
Abusing places of worship for a "free speech act", especially when that act is subjectively blasphemous to the religion, is an infringement of the right of freedom of religion. In my view such an infringement, as in this case, can not be justified by the right of free speech. There are many other places where the free speech can be made. I therefore find the sentence against Pussy Riot quite obviously justified. The two years, of which five month have already been served, may be a bit harsh. But how many years would some punks get who made a free speech point by (symbolically) shitting on the altar of the National Cathedral in Washington DC?"