I concur with what's been said especial about parents taking the responsibility, I think its only/wish the banning of **** abuse/porn which as no place in this world ever which I holly support(even if some disagree) But if Cameron is making this a PR stunt after them 2poor young girl who were sexual assaulted/ murder by those 2 ****,S who watched **** porn then. Not only as this country gone but the whole world fked-up. I can guess what some reply's will be. But if removing it can save one **** life it would be worth it

What will happen next is that when you go to the library, there will be a restricted book section and you have to have permission to enter. It's not so much about the porn being blocked that's the problem, it's that it's a slippery slope of censorship and loss of freedom; our government here in Canada is also considering doing this kind of censorship. Cameron may paint the picture that he's saving the ****, when he's building a list of those who watch pornography. I've seen porn way before I turned 18, and I didn't have any lingering ill effects from it. I also played Grand Theft Auto and those sorts of games when I was a **** and I didn't turn into a crazy axe murderer. Make no mistake, this is your government setting a dangerous precedence of limiting your freedoms.

That is just a cop-out by parents who are too lazy to assume responsibility for their **** and an attempt to shift their responsibilities onto a third party.
A while back a pollie here, Mr. Conroy, tried the same thing in Australia to censor the internet and for isp`s to filter the content, it flew back spectactularly in his face and has been abandoned.
What is the definition of "porn", that depends on the individual and the society.
Filtering the internet can be compared to the post office having to open and read every letter individually, decide if it is "pornographic", delete particular words and then resend the amended letters onto their recipients.

If you are going to have ****, then YOU raise them and do not allow the state to pass laws just because the parents are piss poor adults to have ****. I am fed up with America's NSA spying on everything that we do on line.
My definition of porn is the assholes that think up this kind of legislation. Usually they are ****philes looking for something to cover their tracks and allow better access to ****-just go ask a priest or a baptist minister!

if a c h i l d sees only one person a day being shot or stabbed to death on television, and that is an conservative estimate, by the time he or she is 18, it's seen over 5000 murders!

DO something about THAT please!!

i don't think porn is for the young. my daddy confiscated some porn-magazines i had found when i was twelve. he told me that i would get them back when i was 16. and when i was 16 i asked them back, and i got them back, after he explained the difference between the pictures and real life.

in this western world, and maybe ALL OVER the world, people are more frightened by SEX, than by KILLING and V I O L A N C E! that does seem strange!

parents should do what they should do: OPT OUT! and don't bother me with your laziness to take good care of your c h i l d r e n!

what is the next thing? i have to opt-out on seeing only the primary colours?? where can i do that??

I'd say less than 5% of parents care to implement any kind of parental control, despite that there is a plenty of methods to do that, both paid and free.

Blocking sites at isp level, however, won't do any good. No matter how they try to push porn into xxx domain, you can still see porn posted on forums or social networks that should not have anything to do with porn and thus cannot be blocked correctly.