The Republicans (GOP stands for Grand Old Party), at their Convention, are supposed to talk/refer to internet freedom, but it seems that the wording is very similar to that of their manifesto which called for filtering softwares mandatory in all computers regarding porn.
The point of the TechDirt post is that internet freedom is incompatible with mandatory (vs voluntary) filtering, which made me think of the ALCU case in the early 2000s. I don’t dispute the point, but rather I am concerned about the rationale for calling for filtering computers because of (adult) porn. Adult porn is not illegal as such, on the basis that normally the people engaged in it have freely consented (I know, some dispute that, but it is still the rationale), in contrast to ‘child porn’ which is not porn but visual recording of rape of children. So I find it difficult to reconcile the legality of porn with the alleged need for filtering. There is a contradiction here in legal terms. The story reveals what is purely a moral agenda that should lead to the ban of porn if the Republicans were at least consistent.