I'm no fan of child pornography, but it strikes me as a potential free speech problem when governments cut deals to prevent access to particular sites. It smacks of "prior restraint" to me. I'm also curious as to what the cable companies are getting out of the deal.

I had the same thoughts. Child porn is horrific but I'm sure they'll be a many protestors or whatever trying to overturn the decision.

They should do the same for ALL porn sites. I'm sick of clicking on something that looks like a benign link and it turns out to be porn. I don't care about free speech when it comes to porn - child or adult - I just want it out of my house.

I agree with uncannygunman and :P. We must be weary of government restrictions on free speech.

Go after the sickos who view this and abuse the children, sure, but don't block sites. The question that always comes up is "who decides what is or is not pornographic?"

We must also keep in mind that pornography is defined by the community it is viewed in, not the state or nation it is viewed in.

And to address Do More's comment, pornography is the natural evolution of free speech. You have every right to want it out of your house, but don't punish other adults who wish to view legal adult material.

-->>>I don't care about free speech when it comes to...<<<---

What a horrifying sentiment. Remember, other nations lost their freedoms, step-by-step, when their citizens took this exact attitude.

In response to "what a horrifying sentiment" -- people in this country are so arrogant thinking we have the best system in the world. I've actually lived in other countries where there were limits on freedoms of speech. It wasn't a total ban on speech, just limits to make things more civilized. I can tell you that places like that are much more polite, civilized, and you don't have to wade through mounds of filth to get to what you want. In one country (Taiwan), they had limits on speech and it was wonderful. Then they lifted those limits in the late 80's and I witnessed a huge change in society to the point it was like walking down a Las Vegas red light district every time I took my family out to the market. We definitely need freedom of speech when it comes to criticizing the government and speaking about things that really affect us. But when it comes to porn, there should be no freedoms for that type of speech.

Just a note, child pornography is not a protected form of speech under the 2nd Amendment thus it may be regulated unconditionally. The Supreme Court has stated that obscene speech receives no protection and though it has not made blanket statements as to what is "obscene," it is more than evident that the distribution of images of exploited children ranks in that category. Therefore, publishers of such filth would find no safe refuge within the vestiges of our great Constitution.

So uncannygunman, polish up on your definition of "speech" before you call a law a prior constraint. The Bill of Rights is alive and well and we can still protect our children from predators.

I agree with not attacking constitution!

Free speech rights was intended for political speech.

It was to be left to the communities in regards to literature, art, etc.

I forgot to add:

The federal government was not to take a stand one way or the other.