Amos Yee
Photo: CNA
Photo: CNA

By Carlton Tan

Amos Yee Pang Sang was found guilty on 12 May of two offences: IOne for putting up an obscene image on his blog and another for attempting to wound the religious feelings of Christians.

District Judge Jasvender Kaur explains her decision in a 16-page written judgment. Here’s a simple breakdown of her reasoning on the obscenity conviction.

Obscenity law: Should it be restricted to pornography?

On the first charge of whether Yee had violated section 292 of the penal code by posting an obscene image, the judge rejected the defence’s argument that the obscenity law is “meant to catch purveyors and peddlers of pornography; not political satire”.

First, she reasoned that pornography is merely an “aggravated form of obscenity” which law enforcement agencies typically target. This does not mean other forms of obscenity do not exist.

Second, she reasoned that the use of section 292 has “evolved with changing trends and mediums of publication”, citing the example of one prosecution involving t-shirts. This means it is appropriate expand the law to include non-pornographic, but still obscene, publications.

Third, she reasoned that since the purpose of section 292 is to protect the minds of vulnerable people from corrupting influences, Yee’s intention is irrelevant. Whether or not he intended to encourage open political debate is irrelevant, what matters is the effect of his image.

Obscenity law: The appropriate test

Next, the judge considered what the appropriate test of “obscene” should be. She accepted that for something to be “obscene”, it must fulfil two criteria. First, it must have “the tendency to deprave and corrupt.” Second, it must have this effect on the primary readership, i.e. “those persons who are likely to view the blog post.”

The judge did not clarify whether she accepted or rejected the defence’s definition of the subsidiary terms, “deprave” and “corrupt”. The defence argued that there is a high threshold to be reached. To corrupt is to lead one to moral perversion. It is not sufficient for the image to merely cause shock or revulsion; it is also not sufficient if it merely leads viewers morally astray.

Obscenity law: Persons likely to view the blog post

Judge Kaur reasoned that since Yee is a teenager, it is reasonable to infer that he will attract readership amongst his age group. She rejected the defence’s argument that those who view the image do so willingly and are aware of what they are in for.

“It does not matter whether the young reader clicks on the link unsuspectingly or has permissive values and therefore clicks on the link because of its title,” she said. She then cited a ruling wherein the judge wrote:

it could never have been intended to except from the legislative protection a large body of citizens merely because, in different degrees, they had previously been exposed, or exposed themselves, to the “obscene” material. The Act is not merely concerned with the once for all corruption of the wholly innocent; it equally protects the less innocent from further corruption, the addict from feeding or increasing his addiction.

Obscenity law: Tendency to deprave and corrupt

First, Judge Kaur rejected the defence’s submission that a similar image could be found on Women’s Health Magazine. She held that comparisons with other available material is the wrong approach and pointed out that it was a South African website, reasoning: “What is permitted elsewhere in the world is also irrelevant.” Asserting the sovereignty of the court, she said, “It is for the court to judge if the image is obscene having regard to our current community’s standards or conscience,”

Second, Judge Kaur established a novel test for determining the secondary question of what “deprave and corrupt” mean. She asked the two questions: “Would any right-thinking parent approve of their teenage daughters and sons to view such an image?” “Would any teacher approve of such an image to be viewed by his or her students in the school library?” For her, the answer to these questions “would be an emphatic ‘no’.” “It would meet with their strongest possible disapproval and condemnation,” she added. (To note, these questions are subjective in nature, that is, it is a matter of the preference of the parent or the teacher and not an objective moral standard.)

Third, she considered what Yee’s image depicted. She asserts that the image “portrays two persons having anal sexual intercourse in a sexual position”, an act of “unnatural intercourse” which is “made explicit by the description ‘buttfucking’.” However, the prosecution’s main contention was never about the depiction of anal sex.

Fourth, she considered what effect this might have on viewers. She reasoned that such an image would “not only tend to excite teenagers to try out different sexual positions but also deviant sexual activity, i.e., anal intercourse.” She then concludes that “such sexual desires and lascivious thoughts would have a corrupting effect on young minds.”

Fifth, to establish that our societal norms are against anal sex, she quoted the sex education syllabus on the Ministry of Education’s website which states that one of its aims is teach children to “avoid sexual experimentation”.

Accordingly, Judge Kaur concludes: “I am satisfied that the charge has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt and the accused is found guilty and convicted.”

Yee will be sentenced on 2 June.

This article was first published on Asian Correspondent.

Subscribe
Notify of
33 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Li Shengwu: “I have decided to pay the fine, in order to buy some peace and quiet.”

Having been tied up in a court battle with the Singapore government…

近万人分享涉诽谤贴文 鄞义林:总理应一一提告

博客鄞义林昨晚于脸书发文,发现涉诽谤内容的The Coverage新闻文章,被分享次数多达9097人,然而只有时评人梁实轩因为分享有关贴文而被总理提告。 “有近万人分享了有关贴文,偏偏只有梁实轩被提告。” 他指出,梁实轩甚至只是纯粹分享贴文,也没有留下任何评述。其他同样在社交媒体分享转发贴文的人,却没被对付。 “既然如此,不是很明显地搞个人针对吗?”鄞义林认为,如果要体现法律公平,总理应该对近万名分享贴文的人提告。 再者,总理以文章的诽谤内容提告梁实轩,即便后者从未对有关文章做出任何评述。总理实则应该直接针对原撰文者,但他却没这么做,说明总理处事偏颇。 只因一人“龙颜大怒”就提告他人,岂有公平可言?鄞义林认为秉持法律公平原则,总理可能败诉,总理也应对其搞个人针对的行为,接受惩罚。 在2014年,部落客鄞义林也因为英语文章《您的公积金去了哪?城市丰收教会审讯的启示》,也同样被李显龙总理提告。鄞义林最后向总理致歉,并被判需赔偿15万元。 梁实轩在去年11月初,因分享一则涉诽谤内容贴文,而被总理提告。即便梁已经按照资媒局指示撤下转发贴文,还是接到了总理代表律师的信函,要求后者对总理公开道歉和赔偿名誉损失。 梁实轩目前已反告总理滥用司法程序。  

MOH wrong to label comment by TOC editor as falsehood

Addressing a specific section of the remarks made by TOC Chief Editor…

一女子惊觉受骗报案曝光 留英才子拟出国潜逃

敢做不敢当,涉嫌偷拍最少11名女性的本地留英大学生,在上周获得法院批准继续出国深造后,被指想要出国潜逃。 面对19项侮辱女性尊严以及一项拥有猥亵视频控状的22岁被告,昨日(14日)被控方在庭上揭露,前者曾经私讯友人,有计划到外国时寻求庇护,因此要求法庭撤销批准被告出国留学的决定。 据悉,原本案件中的受害者一共有11名女性,但是在案件新闻曝光后,一名与被告相识了六年的女子向警方报案,表示自己也是被偷拍的受害者之一,更将被告有意潜逃的手机短信内容交给警察。 女子不知自己也成受害者 控方指出,该名女子原本并不知道自己是受害者,一直到她看到自己成为被告偷拍的猥亵视频“主角”后,才惊觉自己被骗了。 女子透露,在不知晓自己就是受害者时,曾于去年10月接获被告的手机短信,指被告向她仔细分析了利弊后,有意到国外寻求庇护。 受害者要求公布被告身份 除此之外,控方也要求法庭解除隐瞒身份禁令,因为案件中的10名受害者一致认为,被告不该受到禁令保护,应该公开身份。其余的两名受害者中,其中一人仅有16岁,需要征询家人意见后才决定,另一人则所有保留。 针对公布被告身份议案,被告代表律师持反对票,他认为案件受害人和被告熟识,一旦公布被告身份,受害者身份也可能曝光。 法官表示,基于接获新的证据,针对是否允许被告继续到英国深造,以及是否接触隐瞒身份禁令,都将会在明日(16日)开审宣判。