It's extremely poor judgement. The article also mentioned filtering content about drugs - since obviously, it's a bad idea to allow the public to educate themse

It's extremely poor judgement. The article also mentioned filtering content about drugs - since obviously, it's a bad idea to allow the public to educate themselves about the safe use of substances that are encountered on a daily basis in the UK. Whilst the 'slippery slope' argument is generally a weak one, it seems to be inevitable once this machinery is put into place. First porn, then drugs, then suicide and eating disorders, then sites that are used for piracy, then sites that advocate civil disobedience, then fringe political groups like Occupy Wall Street or Stop the War Coalition. You can disable it at any time, but what parent is going to remove the filter that protects their children from seeing porn? Having to 'opt in' to 'risky content' is tantamount to public shaming.