Any society has to review it's values every now and then. A lot of times this mechanism of review is driven by special interest pressure groups, but in reality (though those sort of people bug me) it's their democratic right to get things that offend them on the agenda - just as it is for people of the opposing view to get organised and block them (if they outnumber them or have smarter media skills - "moral highground" issues abound here also).

Any member of a democracy that doesn't actually get out there to protect their freedoms are complicit in the loss of them - signing online petitions or posting outrage to a silly forum isn't going to help - you have to go through all the boring, hard, frustrating and tedious processes of governmental representation to even begin to fight these sorts of fights.

At a guess I'd say that it would be likely that any extremist group would seek to ban ALL porn (and even sex outside the missionary position, with the lights off, then away to separate beds and guilt) - if the fight is actually about Violent Porn then that's where you focus your battle, to deliniate between stuff like bondage etc and actual rape etc porn.

From what the first poster quoted it looks like an attempt to target the owners of the nastier material as a way to get around the fact they can't stop off-shore suppliers. I agree that it opens up the possibility of all kinds of abuses by police and politicians under pressure around election time - but that comes back to that boring "organise a pressure group of your own" type of task, if only to deliniate the difference between Porn, Violence, Consensual Bondage and unpleasant 3D renders (or even the more extreme forms of Manga out there).

It shouldn't be down to a witchhunter to decide if a 3D render is violent porn or not - YOU should do that surely?

Cheers