Censoring the Internet is:
A) A band aid solution that does not compare to tracking down and prosecuting the culprits, and
B) A powerful tool for political control.
Governments choose it because point A) means it is cheaper than actually solving crimes and point B) is all gravy for controlling an unruly population.
Censorship on the internet has nothing to do with stopping [insert favorite bogyman here]. For example: If Governments of the world really really cared about Child porn, there is no way in hell they would subscribe to TRIPS, GATS and other trade agreements that push so fervently for expansion of intellectual property (IP) rights worldwide. The majority of Child porn comes from poor developing countries - called "Source Country" exploitation. Many research and commissions inquires have overwhelmingly [References below] found these trade agreements severely disadvantage developing countries. Basically it guarantees keeping poor countries poor by denying them the same abilities to develop as the first world countries once enjoyed (refs below) .
Do we see your government moving to solve this major worldwide source of child porn? No of course not - they are too busy negotiating ACTA
in the backrooms. Child porn is just another bogyman to push through controls on the internet - and as a result your going to get worse IP restriction AND internet censorship == the complete opposite of actually solving the child porn problem (and the closely related human trafficking, and poverty, starvation...). It could be said: If you support internet censorship then your also supporting the continuation of child porn... I know of no other place where we can debate and call into question/try to pressure our leaders to answer questions about draconian restrictions on the third world like ACTA will impose.
References (of many) you can find on the internet linking IP laws and trade agreements to continuing poverty of the developing world:
The GATS and TRIPS are both examples of rich countries investing their most vigorous negotiating efforts on agendas where the gains will accrue overwhelmingly to companies located in rich countries. They are examples of a one-size-fits-all approach being imposed and, most strikingly, of rich countries now pulling up the ladder, trying to deny developing countries the very policy options that rich countries used to manage their own economic development.
Commission on Intellectual Property Rights declared the internationally-mandated expansion of intellectual property (IP) rights unlikely to generate significant benefits for most developing countries and likely to impose costs, such as higher priced medicines or seeds. This makes poverty reduction more difficult. The intensively researched, 180-page report is entitled Integrating Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy. It is the culmination of much study and follows on more than a dozen meetings and workshops, 17 working papers, an exhaustive literature review of the field, visits to several developed and developing nations and a major conference. The report makes some 50 recommendations aimed at aligning IP protection with the goal of reducing poverty in developing nations. Topics include IP and health; agriculture; traditional knowledge; copyrights, software and the Internet; and the role of WTO and WIPO in advancing developing country interests. The Commission is an independent international body made up of Commissioners from both developed and developing countries with expertise in science, law, ethics and economics. The Commissioners come from industry, government and academia* (see list of Commissioners below). "Developed countries often proceed on the assumption that what is good for them is likely to be good for developing countries," said Professor John Barton, Commission Chair and George E. Osborne Professor of Law, Stanford University. "But, in the case of developing countries, more and stronger protection is not necessarily better. Developing countries should not be encouraged or coerced into adopting stronger IP rights without regard to the impact this has on their development and poor people. They should be allowed to adopt appropriate rights regimes, not necessarily the most protective ones."