It is. That doesn't mean that a democratically elected govt has to allow sites considered "good" by a private group (like the authors of this article) especially when even the authors themselves seem to be okay with blocking child pornography sites. It's tricky to argue against articles like this as it can quickly be twisted into an argument against human rights or same-sex marriages.
As far as I can see, all parties involved are behaving exactly like one would expect in a free society. People deciding who they want ruling them, democratically elected govts deciding what's good for their societies, ISPs following the laws and those who want to access the blocked sites firing up vpns and accessing them anyway while a group of people whining about this whole situation for profit pretending like they are the watchmen of a free society. This is virtue signalling. A private group passing judgment on what other sovereign nations may consider right and wrong (at that time) for their peoples.