But how does the prosecution determine if it was indeed a real and imminent threat?

Uh oh. Looks like Temasek Review is in the news again for the wrong reasons.

This time, in what is perhaps the first case of its kind, a social networking site user is hauled to court to face charges for inciting violence on Facebook.

The 36-year-old man is accused of doctoring a photograph of a Vietnamese general executing a Viet Cong guerilla by superimposing the face of the guerilla with ex-deputy PM Wong Kan Seng’s face.

He subsequently used it as a profile display picture, posted a link to a video clip depicting the assassination of former Egyptian president on Temasek Review’s Facebook page and followed up with a comment calling for a re-enactment during the 2010 National Day Parade.

There are two aspects that are troubling about this trial. And not the least because what was done appeared a tad too juvenile to be worth prosecution in the first place.

First, how does the prosecution determine whether there was indeed a real and imminent threat posed by the defendant?

Where does one draw the line between a mischevious inconsequential act and an actual threat?

Well, as a news consumer who needs to rely on Channel News Asia’s reporting to provide the facts, you will never know because it simply doesn’t elaborate.

Damn you, sparse reporting!

Second, why didn’t the public hear anything about this issue until now considering it reportedly occured more than one year ago some time between July and August 2010?

Is it not possible for a case that is most certainly of public interest – considering also that it is the first of its kind – to be given some air time before it went on trial?

If there is indeed a lesson in this trial for the public-at-large to be aware of, can we have more facts, please? Or at least the next time when something similar happens, can we find out from the start when the whole thing was actually ongoing?

Last, but not least: If you recall, in September 2011, a TR-linked personnel by the name of Joseph Ong was arrested for conducting exit polling on Facebook during the general election on May 7.

According to Singapore law, it is an offence under the Parliamentary Elections Act to publish opinion polls during an election and exit polls on Polling Day before the election results are declared.

That was perhaps a first case of its kind too.

And his arrest seems a bit iffy as well.

For the benefit of anyone who needs to know about how polls work, here’s what you should know to understand that what Joseph Ong did was ultimately pointless and non-scientific to begin with: The troubling aspect of his arrest at that time was that his method of using Facebook to conduct polling is essentially flawed because anyone who voluntarily offers to be polled commits a self-sampling bias.

This means, without randomly selecting respondents, the poll wouldn’t work at all and it will reveal nothing insightful other than showing results that are a waste of time and a pile of crap.

This basically means that the results from the poll are more or less useless and wouldn’t reflect closely enough the actual results of the election.

So, if the methodology was wrong and the results inaccurate – something which we know and can predict from the start – is there even a case to be made for prosecuting him?

Therefore, how far should the law go in prosecuting someone who is obviously getting polling done wrongly in the first place?

As a deterence for anyone in the future who might in fact find a way to get it right?

Really?