That Amos is a difficult youngster aside, I think the bail terms about ban from posting on internet was excessive in so far as it exceeded the particulars of the case : I.e. he offended Christians, he posted and obscene carriture of LKY and Lady Margret Thatcher having sex.
Terms of the bail should thus have only banned Amos from commenting about the case at hand: both not to aggravate the charges he faced as well as not to prejudice the judicial process by attempting to sway public opinion: the raising of funds for legal defense, without excessively publicising the case should be allowed: I feel.
Banning ALL internet posts is like using a hammer to kill an ant: I.e. an excessive use of force. A condition of the bail could be a withdrawal (if not apology) for the offending images/ video from public view. Banning one from posting on internet is like Islamic hudud law of cutting off the hand of a thief: even so, I do not believe that Islamic fundamentalists use such a law frivolously.
Banning all internet posts is like banning a person involved in shoplifting from visiting ANY shop or limiting such a person to internet transactions only (lesser chance of repeat shoplifting due to internet firewall etc): obviously an overkill based upon the decision of the said judge.
In any case, given Amos daily reporting order at bedok police station according to original $20,000 bail condition, damage would have been limited since only 24hrs would have lapsed before his bail could have been suspended at anytime between his compulsory reporting times. That no internet posting bans were included in his post conviction bail ($10,000) conditions is testament to the fact that the pre-trial bail conditions wrt internet posting ban were excessive and high handed....
