I was reading the headlines about this earlier today, it was funny to read about.
It's a slippery slope. Since most porn on the internet is user-generated content and not made by the porn industry, where would it stop? Would we have to opt in for "porn access" so that we could also still access social media sites or anywhere that allows user-generated content, even if we had no intention of searching for porn?
Yay for politicians who don't know the first thing about how the internet works - Sounds like a lousy excuse for another attempt at censorship. I mean Cameron doesn't want to ban the porn on Page 3 of The Sun (national newspaper), believing it "should be up to consumers whether to buy The Sun" or not
, yet he wants the 'net censored... That speaks for itself. Talk about double standards.
Fortunately what Cameron wants is impossible without curbing free speech and breaking the internet in a way that pisses the majority of the population off (see the comments to the articles about this on various news sites - People are VERY aware of the shenanigans), and that votes are important to them, so they'll probably U-turn on this like they've done on alcohol pricing and other stuff.
As a side note, I'm all for banning child pornography, but if they were serious about doing that then they'd chase down and prosecute the paedophiles who were uploading this shit on the internet and curb this crap at the source, rather than attempting to blanket ban everything that the government deem "questionable" in ways which won't actually stop the paedophiles or change a damned thing except further inconvenience people who already obey the law. Using this as an excuse for internet censorship is insulting to those who have been harmed by child abuse.
Yet another example of our government's incompetence. How depressing.