Nice to see the authoritarian streak is still strong... eh?
Deciding that other people are too stupid to be able to do this, and thus those other people need a government mandated filter at the ISP to filter adult content is perhaps a bit authoritarian.
Don't forget that UK mobile providers already filter adult content (T-Mobile have something called "Content lock" - you need to go to the shop with ID to prove age to have it switched off. O2 and the others have something similar.)
And the UK has the Internet Watch Foundation - a quango that has the power to request that ISPs filter some pages and images.
I don't know what the answer to protecting people from extreme imagery is, but I do know a government filter isn't it.
While this is noble, what happens when I as a parent disagree with what the government thinks my child needs to be protected from?
Another thing, where the hell are the parents in all of this? If the kid is young enough to need protection from many things on the internet, that same kid shouldn't be surfing the internet unsupervised!
The government aren't trying to enforce a filter, despite sensationalist journalism like this.
How is it 'authoritarian'? The motivation here is clearly to make it easy and therefore usable, rather than difficult and therefore unusable.
> I don't know what the answer to protecting people from extreme imagery is, but I do know a government filter isn't it.
How do you know that it isn't it? It seems to me that you've started from the axiom that it isn't it and come to no conclusions whatsoever.
It's about the government providing tools for parents.
From the actual report: "The Panel believes that ISPs working together will deliver a more effective Opt-In system on a self-regulated basis "
It's like when using contraception is too difficult for some people - so let's outlaw non-procreational sex entirely.