[angelsl]

Why is everyone focusing on the fact that someone spoke via Skype?

The fact is that

1. Jolovan Wham did organise a physical gathering of people 2. The gathering/assembly meets the definition as in the Public Order Act[1] 3. The venue, The Agora, meets the definition of a public place as in the Public Order Act

[1]: https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/POA2009

They could have been watching a recorded video and it would have been the same.

[brianpgordon]

I'm not sure that a recorded video would have been the same. The source for the techcrunch article says:

> The Singapore Police Force in an earlier statement, said that Wham had organised an indoor public assembly featuring a foreign speaker, which required a Police permit.

Although given that political films are also banned, maybe a prerecorded video would have been illegal under a different law.

[angelsl]

The problem is the intent of the gathering, not that it had a foreign speaker. (Not that I agree with the law, but that's what it says.)

[mempko]

And? Some laws are stupid and must be broken.

[angelsl]

If you don't like a law, change it, don't break it and get yourself in trouble.

This is basically the difference between East Asian cultures and Western/American culture. We value a balance of order and individual rights, you guys value individual rights over all.

[lolc]

Ah, I was wondering how Skype played a role. So there's no reason it shows up in the title.