But there is a very big difference between an optional filter where people can opt-out and "the government is banning things!" - the government isn't banning anything, it's just forcing filters to be opt-out.
Campaigns against the filters will be more effective if they concentrate on what the filters actually are, rather than the not-real scenarios being presented.
It's not about banning, it's about authority thinking it can provide a moral compass as to what it deems "abhorrent".
It's about records being kept as to what exactly individual households wish to see on the net and what happens when such lists get hacked and leaked.
It's about declaring to an authority what you wish to view in a supposed free society.
It's about opposing an infrastructure of filtering and censorship which has the potential to be misused.
Never "calm down".
What good will come from this?
> Compare a filter where the user has to opportunity to opt out and thus get access to everything they have access to today, with something like the Australian filter (no opt out) or the Chinese filter (no opt out).
Oh hey, at least our filter wont be as bad as theirs right? Same stupid argument used with the NSA scandal.