Ok I'll try to reply as to why I don't really think anything pussy riot is doing is great, even though I still think that it's an outrage and a crime to treat them as hard criminals. By this I'll try to make a point that's relevant to the topic too I think.
They tried to get the attention they are getting now (were getting at the time of their arrest) for years. No one gives a shit about the punk band art project thing. They tried to make their performance as illegal as possible and later on they say, everything happened, because of their message. That's, simply put, not true. It's because, if your trademark is (and significant amount of punk is like that) to make art by trying to hurt people emotionally and that's the only common denominator of their cooperative efforts, you are not going to find many people cheer for you.
Oh, but you will, if you manage to anger some force that's stronger than you and it puts you in your place. People root for obvious villains that way. It's a standard Hollywood plot device. If you want the audience to like an asshole, just bring someone in that knocks him down a little. So that people cheer for pussy riot is some basic psychological exploit. They shouldn't be in jail, but they never did anything to better the situation of anyone. Anarchism isn't new to the world and certainly not to Russia. Anarchism's main produce are just Putin type characters btw.
Now how does that relate to the thread:
I brought up nonviolence in my prior post. However the US has something of a great guide to draw on that came to be from it's own Henry David Thoreau in his (short, everyone can and should read it) essay about the duty to Civil Disobedience. The thing is, he argues that everyone should be disobedient towards the state, because the state needs to be tested, to evolve. If the state passes an unjust law, break it, go to jail. A just society will develop naturally, because if people follow their sense of justice, the law needs to cater them. If they follow the law, it will follow it's own justice.
The thing is what is the point? Can this be used as an argument for rioting? Was Osama Bin Laden doing the US a favor by his violent "protest"? Is Pussy Riot creating art?
Civil disobedience needs the goal of justice to it and it can not stray. It doesn't excuse vengeance. It's vigilantism is a last resort, that is out of bounds in any situation where justice can be reached without it. If it's the default action, well, as it is destructive, the default result is destruction.
That's why I don't support Pussy Riot and I couldn't care less about them. I support the notion, that Russia should not imprison people, because they are dissidents. I also believe multi year sentences are unnecessary in their case. I also believe that Art shouldn't go free on the basis of being art and if you try to steal food from a supermarket (just an example, but members of the pussy riot have been doing that as "performances", in ways they understand as art) you are still stealing food.
If you riot, you riot. If you attack a policeman or throw stones, you throw stones. Context can ease the severity of a crime, but here what is happening in the surrounding is only context.
What counts for Pussy Riot's breaking of the law counts for looting and rioting everywhere.
So that's to civil disobedience and protest; Both are good, but breaking the law, to get even is giving rightful justification to the state to knock you down. We have seen it with occupy: No formulated goal and no commitment to non-violence gets you nowhere. It gets you legislation that makes protesting harder, it gives more power to the police in short, it makes everything worse.