Hacker News Reader

Comment by ekianjo | Hacker News Reader

Im not sure I understand the story. He was judged for illegal assembly regardless of the Skype call, as far as I understand. Anyone else can comment?

View on HN

"“The law says that any event which is open to the public, and is ’cause related’, requires a permit when a foreigner speaks."

There was a foreign speaker participating over Skype. As idiotic as the law seems to be, I do believe the case is rather clear. The foreigner did indeed speak at the conference, which was public. The fact that Skype was used as a medium to facilitate that doesn't really change anything.

He did not. Some electrons were converted into photons of different frequencies mostly in the human visual spectrum, and some electrons were converted into other frequences in the spectrum that can be converted into a meaning by a human.

If I rant against Disney land with the dealt penalty, and the video is later played there, I have not given a speech there.

> Some electrons were converted into photons of different frequencies mostly in the human visual spectrum, and some electrons were converted into other frequences in the spectrum that can be converted into a meaning by a human.

If someone live-streams a keynote and a Q/A session as a part of an event, then the person speaking is obviously participating.

Please note, that I have no problems with remote participation of events. It just happens that our favourite south-east asian police state requires a permit for such events. Our opinions on whether that law is a good one or not has nothing to do with the medium chosen for the event.

He had a gathering on private property in a mall, where 100 people showed up and listened to a Hong King Activist talk for 2 hours. Sounds quite like a conference IMO.

The right to free assembly isn't a thing in Singapore apparently.

That’s weird. I thought they were trying to be a modern country?

Many modern countries have heavy restrictions on freedom of speech. The United States is the exception, not the rule.

That is indeed very much true. Though there are many attempts to attack Freedom of Speech in the US as well, so not sure how long it lasts.

No modern democracy has Singapore-type restrictions on speech, unless you take the loosest possible definition of democracy (ie one expansive enough to encompass Singapore).

At least some western european nations have anti-hate speech laws, though I consider a country to have "free speech" if individuals are free to criticize the government. What are you referring to?

And challenge the status quo? Not if the government can help it :P

It's a pro-corporate one-party rule. With the enshrinement of Lee Hsien Loong as the PM, Singapore is headed the dynastic route that ruined other Asian democracies like India.

Rich does not equate to equitable. Dubai and Qatar are other examples.

What defines “modern” as implying a right to free assembly?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com