I suggest that, if the state seriously wished to protect children from harm that results merely from being exposed to certain kinds of communications, rather than responding to ill-informed moral panic about the Internet, it would need to conduct extensive psychological and sociological research. Even then, it would have a great deal of difficulty determining an objective standard of "harm" - and if it somehow succeeded, the product of its investigations might well be surprising.
Link:
Russell brings up a strong point here. Before we pay extra for our internet and pay for more rigged computer tests, let's see the figures on children that have been harmed by porn. I don't know any. Why aren't the psychologists clambering to say "Yes! I see dozens of children a week who are mentally damaged by porn."
Children who are forced or tricked into sex with adults are damaged but this is predominantly coming from non-porn activities (I'm looking at the Anglicans and the Catholics here). Don't try shifting the blame for aberrant, abhorrent behaviour in clergy onto the porn industry. Show me a single man who has just watched a porno and spanked himself who is looking for a child to have sex with. Conflating these two activities to muddy the waters is useful cover for the church generated paedophiles but it does nothing to protect children.
Posts
