I'm a young and liberal person, but I think this would be a good idea if implemented well and correctly. I'm generally against the government intervening in parenting, when it should be the parents who make and enforce rules and I don't think this legislation is a replacement for good parenting, but it would help.

(I haven't referenced my post cause i'm quite late to comment and I doubt anyone will read so its not worth the effort, but I will get references at request or if this gains traction)

In terms of the arguments FOR this, the obvious is the damage which pornography does to children. The number of very young children - between 10 and 14 who are viewing this material is skyrocketing (according to questionnaires) while doctors are reporting that early teenage girls are asking them questions about cosmetic labia surgery. Pornography is severely damaging to healthy teenage sexual development and social understanding.

In terms of arguments AGAINST this, there are two.

Firstly, that children will still access the material by finding ways around it. I have no doubt that this is true, but you cannot argue that if 1 million children access adult material a day, that the number wouldn't drop with extra measures. I think this would particularly impact accidentally stumbling on something, children who are curious but don't have the guts to break the law - which I think mostly covers the youngest children and thus the most severely affected.

Secondly, there is the 'slippery slope' that this could lead to further and unjust censoring of material. Well, the material is still accessible to adults and I think it is unfair to assume additional measures will be implemented before the first measures have already occurred. If we find that the censor is being expanded to cover material that it shouldn't we can campaign against it then, but at the moment it is only proposing removing clear pornography to children. Lets see how its implemented first.