It seems a good idea, in theory. It also seems a bit sketchy.
So much 'porn' is user-generated these days, and distributed by the creator, and yes how we decide what is 'porn' is an issue as well.
What of adult hobbyist sites, fetish sites, swingers sites, riggers sites, what about sex shops, Ann Summers, 'Mens' mags, The Sun online...
Is it a case that they'll ban a search on anything with the word 'adult' in it?BBC iPlayer is listed as a "risk" site by most web filtering engines already, due to the "Potential for containing Adult Content.
Protecting children is a damn important issue-I'm just not sure this will work. If it is a case of filtering any searches with the world 'Adult' in them, people will have to remove the block to access so many things.
Also, I remember a couple of years ago reading a CEOP report whereby they'd stated that many peodophiles are becoming more tech-savvy than the average internet user, more technically competent-in order to cover their tracks, It's the nature of the beast
The idea of 'helplines' and warnings popping up when a person tries to access media that features the underage is good, as is the proposal of police tracing of those trying to access it-I can kind of forsee it having a potential for going wrong, though. So many things have double meanings and/or are ambiguous.
'Ageplay' porn is already illegal, I think , or at least depicting an underage person is, regardless of their chronological age-yet it's EVERYWHERE, same with Urolagnia, banned from porn sites (apparently) banned from live porn shows, but two clicks and you can view it.
I agree with the issue of parental and other adult responsibility-not everybody is diligent at making sure children cannot see what's inappropriate.
Do we think that any media violence will be banned as well? Depictions of people hurting one another-again inappropriate for underage viewers.