Exact Nature of Crime Withheld From Jury

So, this thing has really become quite bizarre. It's like going to court to witness the trial as a visitor, or a member of the jury, and then not knowing what the crime is because the plaintiff doesn't want to tell. It's really weird. The Reuters report that most have seen contain the following:

Paris-based Reporters without Borders said the case highlighted the lack of free expression in Singapore, which is among the 20 lowest-scoring countries in the organization's worldwide press freedom index.

"Chen criticized some of A*Star's policies but there was nothing defamatory in what he wrote," Julien Pain, head of Reporters without Borders' Internet freedom desk, told Reuters.

So I emailed Pain to ask him for more insight since he seems to have seen the alleged defamation remarks. (To put a human face to the RSF, here's a video interview with Pain.) Obviously I understand that even if Pain does indeed know something that the rest of the world doesn't, he could get AcidFlask into trouble if he reveals what he knows since the newest apology does include a clause that the remarks can no longer be told to a third party.

Which is precisely Pain's email reply to me, that he can't give me any more information about those comments and that it's up to AcidFlask to reveal them. Which he can't possibly do if he doesn't want to be threatened again!

So this apology is quite clever, in a technical sense, because it gives the plaintiff a sort of joker/wildcard, a 'special power' to prevent anyone else to see for themselves what Exhibit A is. Even the famous defamation cases that involved rival politicians, the exact defamatory speech is clearly revealed. Could Pain have been right? That there's nothing defamatory all along? And if that's true, is there anything that can be done about this? I do understand that my analogy in the title isn't exactly analogous to the present situation since this has not gone to court yet. Still, the same strategy could be used against any blogger if things stand as they are...

Some authority looking at kid's website: Hey you, I don't like what you write. Take it down.
Kid: But it's just my website about zoo animals!
Authority: I don't care, take it down. Or I'd sue. And don't talk to no one about this. Our conversation never happened.
Kid: Whatever you say... *shrugs*

More from SingaporeAngle, mrbrown.