The first distinction to emphasize is between moral principle and the practical. Pornography is not free speech or free expression, unless you assume a totally

The first distinction to emphasize is between moral principle and the practical. Pornography is not free speech or free expression, unless you assume a totally unhinged and nihilistic/libertarian view of these terms to mean "anything goes". Pornography is morally reprehensible in every imaginable way, and it is the source of too many social and personal ills to list. It destroys human relationships, ruins a person's ability to relate to others in a healthy and respectful way, cultivates habits that cripple intellectual function, involves the mistreatment and abuse of women in the industry, contributes to infertility, stunts moral development and psychological health, the list goes on. There is no real argument for porn, only boring skeptical rationalization and relativist sophistry, and a list of reasons of why it is a bad thing. That covers principle. What about policy? Here is where questions of implementation are relevant. The fallacy we must avoid is the false implication that if a particular way of containing, reducing, or eliminating porn is impractical, then all means are impractical. (I have given here a general principle that should guide policy. It may very well be the case that the tactics proposed won't "ruin the internet", even if they may shape the internet in ways that opponents don't like. Porn is so odious, that we may need to entertain certain restrictions that bleed into other areas.) FWIW, I think a more aggressive, categorical assault on the production and distribution of pornography is more sensible. The internet is a medium of delivery, not a producer of pornography, so existing laws criminalizing the distribution or other objectionable content could be expanded to include pornography. Targeting producers, whether corporate or private individuals, is arguably the most fruitful tactic, with the secondary result that there will be less porn being distributed. And we mustn't ignore the chilling effect that criminalization has on attitudes. It is not true that the only laws worth making are those that can be enforced. A law is a kind of declaration of expectations that has the power to shape social norms. Simply knowing something is illegal has a psychological and social effect. It gives the conscience a signal, or at threat to motivate the morally unscrupulous, and it provides a tangible basis for establishing social sentiment and stigmas. There is a social stigma attached to being a criminal, and so by criminalizing porn, you receive a clear social sanction to classify those involved in porn as criminals and therefore worthy of being ostracized. It won't prevent all pornographic activity, but it will create an environment that will reduce its presence and shape attitudes toward it.