Extramarital dating site: Society has right to enforce public morality

I refer to the report “Extramarital dating site not welcome” (Oct 26), which detailed comments by Mr Noel Biderman, Chief Executive Officer of Avid Life Media, on how blocking Ashley Madison will not prevent acts of infidelity from occurring.

These comments, redolent with liberal assumptions, obscure the more important issues at stake in the public debate. The first is whether society has the right to enforce public morality. If yes, the second is whether it should do so on the issue of websites facilitating adultery. The third is whether there are alternative justifications for banning these websites.

On the first issue, our society has clearly recognised its right to enforce public morality. This is demonstrated by the criminalisation of certain sexual acts such as bestiality and incest even among consenting adults in private, and the more controversial retention of Section 377A.

Our society’s position finds resonance in the words of jurist Patrick Devlin, who argued that society has the right to preserve public morality using the law. This is because society, as a community of ideas, cannot exist without a common morality. Public morality, just like anything else essential to society’s existence, therefore deserves the law’s protection.

The second issue is more controversial. One may argue that, since adultery is legal, society does not consider it a sufficiently grave threat to be criminalised on the basis of public morality. There is, therefore, even less justification for blocking a website that merely facilitates the pursuit of what is legal.

To these, I argue that a clear distinction must be drawn between immorality in the private and public spheres. As legal philosopher H L A Hart emphasised, public decency is a distinct principle for justifying the prohibition of certain conduct, regardless of whether the conduct is immoral or not. Here, websites like Ashley Madison involve not only immorality but also public indecency by facilitating adultery. By openly projecting an alternative lifestyle repugnant to many Singaporeans, they directly offend the values our society holds dear.

In addition, the reaction towards the announcement so far suggests that serious offence has been caused to the public’s feelings. Comparatively, a ban would inflict very little suffering on would-be adulterers, who remain free to pursue their lifestyle choices, albeit via different platforms.

An analogy may also be drawn with Singapore’s pornography laws: While there is no prohibition against the private viewing of pornography, the distribution and other public manifestations of pornography are prohibited.

It is unfortunate that a harmful libertine ethos, represented by Ashley Madison, has found its way into our society. Although adultery is legal, websites that promote and celebrate its practice are publicly offensive and may damage our communal moral ecology by their very existence. If left unchecked at inception, tangible public ramifications are likely to ensue.

I therefore urge the Media Development Authority to send a strong signal reflecting society’s disapprobation towards these websites and Parliament to consider legislating against adultery-related activities in the public sphere.