No it's not because U.K. ISPs have revealed that the filter will censor other content, as well.
"As well as pornography, users may automatically be opted in to blocks on "violent material", "extremist related content", "anorexia and eating disorder websites" and "suicide related websites", "alcohol" and "smoking". But the list doesn't stop there. It even extends to blocking "web forums" and "esoteric material", whatever that is. "Web blocking circumvention tools" is also included, of course." [1]
[1] http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-07/27/pornwall
The bottom line is that if you don't want your children to be exposed to content that may be questionable, don't let them get on the Internet. Set a password on your computer. Install a filtering program which don't require any technical expertise to install whatsoever. Hell, Windows has a web filter build in now a days. Don't force your preposterous views on to me. The government has no place restricting legal content. I'm tired of these bullshit "Think of the children!" arguments.
I don't know what the culture is like in the UK, but if it's similar to the puritanical shame nonsense prevalent in the US surrounding sex - than filtering the internet seems like an extension of that rather than solving any real problem.
Then of course there's all the associated problems that complicate things when you start restricting speech on a communication medium.
I think this is a really bad idea.
I'm not worried about my children (although I don't have any yet). But I think in many household this will be for the good. As I said, it's not uncommon for children to know more about computing than their parents.
I seem to be alone here in thinking pornography is a bad thing. I find it strange that you would say such a view was "preposterous", though. It certainly isn't unusual, outside of the tech/geek world. I would be quite happy if pornography were illegal. That said, I realise the argument for government intervention in this way is a difficult one to make.
Just imagine that tomorrow the common view in the UK is that China and all its citizen are the spawn of the devil, and any message coming to contradict this is to be censored out of the british internet, because it goes against the official view .... Only the technical savy being able to see what are the views from of others outside the UK.
Imposing your view onto others is not the way forward.
I agree with the general sentiment that the government regularly over step their mark in terms of involvement in our lives and attempts to control our activity and freedom of expression. However, I am happy to see voices speaking up against pornography which I see as a plague on our society.
I'm not sure how this is an argument against the filter? We agree that "parents need to supervise and educate their children about internet use", in the same way that parents need to supervise and educate their children about crossing the road. That doesn't mean we do away with traffic lights. The filter will surely help facilitate parents in their efforts to protect their children. If they don't want it, they can have it removed.
"It also sets a poor precedent that objectionable content can be blocked ... promote education over flimsy, disruptive, and money-wasting "solutions"."
This is really the same argument, reiterated. Why not promote both good parenting and "solutions"? Many people don't have the technical expertise to set up filters of this kind on their own (I would suggest that in many households, computers are used almost exclusively by the children). They might have the desire to be responsible parents in this area, but not know how to go about doing it.
The only other point raised here is the "poor precedent" of blocking content. Is the argument here that it will lead to blocking of more content in the future? If so this a slippery slope fallacy. There is no evidence that this is the case. And if you really need to carry on watching porn, give your ISP a call. No one is stopping you.