Well, what has fees got to do with whether an event is private or not? In fact, I will argue that fees make an event private because there is a barrier to being part of the event.
And as long as it’s private and steps have been taken to create barriers to the event, I don’t care whether it’s a media screening or mass orgy. Private affairs are, private.

In that case, all paid cinema performances would be private by your definition.

And thus, there should be no restrictions on any form of media, so long as a fee is charged for the viewing?

And as long as it’s private and steps have been taken to create barriers to the event, I don’t care whether it’s a media screening or mass orgy. Private affairs are, private.

Yes I will still object. A private screening is a private screening. I don’t see any widespread ‘harm’, if any, to others. I don’t think I am applying double standards. If something is a private affair, then the state should get their ass out.

i.e. If one is campaigning for political speech to be treated no differently from other forms of speech, then political speech should not receive special concessions, any more than it should receive special restrictions.

I also heard that a fee was charged for those wanting to see the film… if true (and it would be a nice bit of investigative reporting to find out), then it would be very odd for the screening to be considered a “private gathering”.

I wonder what’s the moral of the story is.
Could it be:
1) If you relish throwing stones at little people, one fine day, the stone will gather into a huge rock and fall on you?
2) Or that you enjoy using the media to condemn and shame little people that a day may come and the same medium turned on you except on a much larger scale?

I hope the end won’t be like the young man who killed Jesse James, because he was cowardly, and hope to capitalize from his ‘good deed’ but instead, the people turned against him and he ended in a similar fate as james?

This is how I see it: The act of seizing the DVD is a desperate act
carried out by desperate people who desperately wanted to “fix
the opposition and buy the supporters’ votes”. Someone had
already laid bare his intention openly right from the very
beginning.

Why would one tell the public that he would make the society more
open and then shortly after came out with 19 new laws and 19
amendments to existing laws to curb freedom of assembly and
freedom of speech? Isn’t that a sign of desperate action that goes
against his own promise to the masses?

When such a grave matter as the Mas Selamat’s Limping Escape
happened, someone after 11 days, then came out and said:
“Its happened, its a lapse, what to do?”

Why can’t the same be applied upon such trivial matters as the viewing
of the One Nation film in a hotel for a select group of people? Where is the national priorities?

Are the police only good at catching and bullying the weak but are
totally useless when come to catching Mas Selamat?

Killing an ant with a hammer! This is really going too far!