Of course every sane person is against child pornography, just like every sane person is against terrorism. That does not make any measure having for goal to reduce those atrocious activities good measures to take. And that does not make someone asking himself questions about the relevancy of a solution one of those wicked people, nor one defending them.

It's all too easy to see it black or white. I'm not that concerned about freedom issues (although they do exist), but also about efficiency. After all, preventing terrorists to fly by wanting to scan every single person going through airports looks like a nice idea on paper, but the result is a security theater which costs a lot for weak results.

Given the time needed for a judge (and the overwhelming a mount of work they have otherwise) to examine proofs and order a block, I'm not sure this would be efficient. And even considering that would be, it's trivial for them to move and/or use proxies. That is, if they don't use alternate DNS systems and overlay networks (which they are reportedly using, according to a paper published a few years ago).

Police forces and network managers are generally agreeing that blocking is not efficient and that actively hunting them down is much more effective.

Also this does not make it any more helpful to stop it overseas, where most of the matter occurs. Blocking is like putting a blindfold and pretending it doesn't exist because we're "safe" here.

To sum it up, I'm worried it would be both a money- and time-sink with non-measurable results, cutting of resources that would be better spent chasing those bastards down and destroying their networks.

(anyway, thanks for indirectly calling me both insane and a pedophile, that really makes the discussion more constructive)