> "Additionally when we use cases of a paedophile who's been addicted to child porn videos online, you realise all that Cameron's rules would require him to do is opt in and say, 'Yes, I would like porn please'."
Am I missing something? Or have people genuinely made the argument that this filter will help prevent child pornography? Surely the existing laws already block these sites?
They've genuinely made the argument that that justifies this, yes. No, they can't work computers, but neither can the people whose votes they hope this will net.
Am I missing something? Or have people genuinely made the argument that this filter will help prevent child pornography? Surely the existing laws already block these sites?