This issue has cropped up in the past and its not solely to do with what may conventionally be classed as porn - its also associated with sites which target children for the purpose of selling.

Originally raised back in May of this year in the UK :

Web giants gang up to fight online porn block saying it is not up to them to 'police' the internet

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2138184/Web-giants-gang-fight-online-porn-block-saying-to-police-internet.html#ixzz2CUprhki0

.

hope this doesn't give them any ideas

It's such a joke about, porn...men...and the Holy and Pious Christian types.

Put those men out on the road for travel and they can't get to the porn channels on hotel sets fast enough (not to mention strip bars and/or dirty bookstores). Now, with the advent of "porn on the net", they just need a tablet or lap top.

If they were to start more of that kind of baloney talk here, we would suffocate from the HYPOCRISY!

Here's a video of him making his pitch in Ottumwa, Iowa. (The guy in the striped shirt at the end of the video doesn't seem too pleased with the plan.)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101733232

That and to Save the Crown, of course!

Commie dictation by a Tory. No surprise here.

This is another solution looking for a cause. Porn isn't near the problem that the lies, propaganda, greed and subjugation of the Republican party. In fact this is just more of it.

Cortland DA to head the agency!

As long as the parents are in charge, not the government.

stuck to Net porn, he wouldn't be in the mess he is now.

Just say'n!

also about websites who promote self destruction, like the proAna and self cutting websites.

It's irrational to use freedom of expression as an excuse to let people expose young children to adult content or something they don't have the judgment to analyze or discern its content.

It's so weird that websites like Tweeter and Tumblr are becoming sanctuaries for those who wants to promote pornography and denigrate other humans, for example searching google for the words "gay tumblr" will result in hundreds of porn oriented websites instead of or about gay rights, life and struggles.

That seems to be the real problem.

It shows you what is available, the only responsible party is the person who produce it and distribute that content.

Those sites you don't like are located all over the world. The United States is only the World Police where For Profit Wars and oil are concerned. There isn't enough money in banning smut to get serous with banning it anyway. The money is in producing it.

There is some decent filtering stuff out there - some of it for free. I use on our PC's Qustodio - it gives a good range of choices on what to control and such. Unsure what's good for a Mac tho, or even mobile devices.

As to the OP - I think the Bailey Review went far enough. Give parents the tools. If filtering is going to be in there from the get go, state it "on the package" (so to speak) and if the device or service has the ability to access adult content and the owner or subscriber wants to do so, they can then opt in. This "got kids?" and mandatory install filters thing is too draconian IMO.

Bottom line:

1) Let parents parent...
2) Give parents the tools and make them fully and blatantly aware of their existence,
3) Kids will find the stuff with or without filters if they're intentionally looking for it.

and finally

0) Watch what your kids are doing online! Qustodio does that for me just fine.

or parents need parenting

There isn't a content filter on the planet that isn't hopelessly broken as is. Mandating them is beyond absurd.

And if the user is a parent to insure that they are aware the filters are available.

I know the filters aren't terribly effective but some parents might feel better if they have them.

I don't think it required any user to use them.

Remember, Rick Santorum wanted to crack down on web porno. This year's Republican platform included similar rhetoric.

Endless surveillance, amazing amounts of traffic cameras, and now proposals for mandatory internet filters.

Thank lawd almighty that relig-nut Santorum couldn't even smell the White House grass.....scary stuff.

but I don't get what the big deal is. I don't see it as censorship. Sorry, just don't. This isn't anything like Japan's porn laws which require blurring of all genitalia (I know, what's the point right? But, I digress). Maybe I'm wrong, but I view it as more of an id issue. More along the lines of alcohol or tobacco or, I don't know, porn. I mean, sure, if a kid really wants to see it he's going to. Just like beer, and weed, and playboy. I get that it might be inconvenient to have to install a program and enter a password. But, who is this law hurting, really? Unless the law criminalizes the parent if they don't go through the rigmarole, that is. Seems to me like a responsible thing to do.
There are plenty of parents that just don't. This will, at the very least make them think about it. For at least one second, they'll think about it. Maybe even do something. I don't know. But communism and censorship? Really? I don't get it.

Before the insults begin, I will go on record as
-not having children
-being agnostic
- being a 40 yr. old white male who will let the demographics for aforementioned stats speak for his views on porn

Fire away!

They also filter out any site that advocates in favor of gay rights, for example, probably including this one.

Curbing Cameron will happen mercifully soon, at Britain's ballot boxes.

It will be good riddance to another Tory control freak.

I guess that only applies when it comes to porn. Poor Brits will be wanking themselves with no skinflicks if this trend continues.

You could not do anything on the computer without having to override the system It blocked nearly everything. It had to be uninstalled immediately.