I saw a funny comment about this, it was something like:
"It's kinda ironic that the country's biggest wanker wants to bar pornography on the internet".
This seems to be fueled by the idea that there have been active paedophiles using child pornography prior to the crime (at least it sounded like it on the radio this morning), child pornography that's easy to find on the net and the discussion seems to be extending to pornography in general.
Frankly I think it shows how much Cameron underestimates the internet. I mean, what terms are they going to make unsearchable (I sincerely doubt providers are going to be able to block every pornographic image on the web)? There will be ways people can work around filters, I mean a lot of 12 year old kids get around school barriers to banned websites (I remeber doing so - not naughty stuff before you ask - we weren't allowed to play flash games, the admin thought he was clever, yet we sat there playing a load flash games). Arguably ISPs and the law might be vigilant, but the internet is a huge place, it's meaningless.
If it's about the 'kids', well a responsible parent would set up a parental blocker and well...teach their kids. I don't understand why people are more interested in tucking problems under a rug without actually addressing the real problems. A person isn't going to sexually assault somebody based on the stuff they wank over on the internet. And it isn't going to prevent people making illegal pornography or sexually abusing people. It's just going to make it hard to view these images, but it's not exactly the wall at Fort Knox, it's more like a normal wall anybody with half a brain cell and an erect penis can get around.
I don't know if it's my job or if it's how society has become, but it seems people think the world should revolve around their kids, rather than to take responsibility as parents and teach the buggers. Seriously the amount of customers I get who use their kids as a bargaining chip is ridiculous.
However, I don't think there's a religious motivation (Cameron's hardly been one to enforce policies based on religion), I think it's actually a means of trying to find ways to censor the internet and pornography is an easy one for people to find socially acceptable, especially if you throw out lines like "think of the children". Yet, it would do barely anything to protect them. It just creates a sense of security, when there is none and when you think your child is safe from titties on the net because obviously the government is doing the honourable thing, whilst their 13 year old son is secretly jacking off to Avatar porn because they typed in "blue tits" with safe search off (I mean, I'm sure Cameron isn't going to stop the Bill Oddies out there looking up birds online).
My brother proved the point earlier though. Look at how much has been put into bringing the Pirate Bay down, UK ISPs block the site, yet within 10 seconds he found a way around it to prove a point. It shows how futile the attempts were to get rid of it. Rather than actually doing anything to solve the problem, if parents don't want little Sally looking at dicks online, perhaps her parents should be educated in how to parent their kids when letting them browse the internet and also how to set up parental settings on trusted internet security programs. If you want to use this censoring to stop paedophiles, well, good luck with that. Arguably it's more likely to keep the paedos at bay, because if they're ejaculating in front of a computer screen, they lose their sexual drive, which could have be lost elsewhere. Though, I don't think it should be legal (because by doing so you're allowing a market that abuses children and giving it an increase in demand). Blocking it on the other hand, well, I don't think it'd have an effect.
tl;dr their efforts will be futile, the internet is too big to tame with such weak ideas. It'll be an attempt to excuse internet censorship and they'll use it to get their foot in the door to excuse other forms of censorship.
I'm sure some will appreciate this.