> It seems outrageous to consider a national firewall in the United States, but you're absolutely right. That is where this has to go.
Maybe not a "firewall", but the USA (and in fact the entire world) has effectively already banned communicating some types of data. Pictures of naked children is the prime example. You would have to be a brave man to have a picture of your child frollicing in the sea naked for the first time.
To put it into perspective, 30 years ago that was perfectly fine where I live in Australia. Everybody understood the photo just captured a step in the child's life; that time when water was new to them but clothes didn't matter. It's a moment a parent might want to share with relatives.
That and a lot of other things were innocently posted to the internet in the beginning. Then a collective "internet consensus on morality" seemed to take hold and they quietly vanished. No firewalls were needed.
It's been fascinating to watch in real time how a group of humans develop a common morality, despite being separated by distance, cultures, and ages. I think the power of it is underappreciated. After all, it has effectively banned what had been perfectly acceptable behaviour in Australia for decades. This was driven home when someone in Australia was jailed for having cartoons in their possession, parodies of the Simpsons. Just a couple of decades ago that was unthinkable.
But back to firewalls - so when are they needed? It seems only when a minority was to change the majorities moral stance on some issue, but can't convince them to just "do it" of their own accord. So they force it on them with a firewall. I doubt that's going to work too well over the long term in a democracy.
