Majority consensus or not, Ashley Madison ban justified

The possibility that Ashley Madison would challenge the Media Development Authority’s (MDA) decision to block the site was reported in “Extramarital dating website Ashley Madison ‘disappointed’ by MDA ban” (Nov 9, online).

The company suggested that the ban was unjustified because it was based on the objections of “a small percentage” of Singaporeans, contrary to Singapore’s “open-minded nature”.

This was presumably a reference to the Facebook petition to block Ashley Madison, which has garnered more than 27,200 likes.

The question is whether the force of law can be exercised based on the moral objections of a small percentage of the population. And according to jurist Patrick Devlin, a society is justified in protecting its moral structure.

The outcry against the planned launch of Ashley Madison is an expression of unmanufactured disgust by the man on the street, indicating that society’s tolerance limit has been reached and that a ban is necessary.

While the number of people on the Facebook petition is immaterial, some may ask if the likes represent the views of the reasonable man. To this, there are no easy answers.

Devlin has stated clearly, however, that it would be “too much to require the individual assent of every citizen” to ascertain the moral judgment of society before the law could be exercised.

Hence, Ashley Madison should not seek to challenge the MDA ban on the grounds that there is no majority consensus on the immorality of its site.