Disclaimer: Just to be clear, I am merely using these cases as an example for me to seek clarification from learned readers on TRE.
This posting is not intended to discuss whether these accused are guilty of what they were charged for, whether there are merits in the charges or whether the learned judge was right or wrong.
For the purpose of discussion, I would draw references from the cases of Amos Yee and the TRS couple.
It is evident that both Amos’ and TRS’s cases have one thing in common, which is the allegedly offensive posts were ”posted” ONLINE.
However, Amos was told to ‘shut up’ and not make any more comments or posts online, while the TRS couple have no such restrictions. To me, that is the puzzling part and I hope it is not sub-judice to try to understand the rationale for the restrictions imposed.
While I understand that the courts have vast powers to impose any restrictions legally, but an umbrella ban?
The way I see and understand it, the TRS couple can continue to comment and posts on any website, but Amos can not even go online to make an order for KFC delivery because that would amount to “posting”, wouldn’t it? Even if Amos had wanted to visit PM Lee’s Facebook page and post an apology for insulting his father, he can still be taken to task.
I can understand perfectly if the courts were to issue a restriction on Amos banning him from making similiar offensive postings or any posting pertaining to religion or the late Lee Kuan Yew (may he rest in peace), but banning him entirely from ANY comments or postings?
Its like my wife making a police report against me for allegedly abusing her physically and the courts issue an order banning me from getting within 100 feet of all the women on planet Earth!
I have no doubt the learned judge has his/her perfectly legal and good reasons for imposing such a ban, but I totally fail to see the rationale.
Can someone please enlighten me?