Right, pretty much the same with me. Seems to me there is much ground to be gained here, as to defninitions of a. public, and b. child, and c. commercial, and, d. utterly unacceptable porn, which communities and state legislatures could use (also federal government for Internet, etc.). The same with verbal, etc. decency standards.
Difficult definitions should still be made, don't you think? They don't have to be utterly strict, they just have to be there. Know what? Those definitions are probably already out there, and being used. It's not quite the kind of thing that gets trumped up by mass media, though.
"Industry people" (whatever the industry) like to preserve the "right to police ourselves." No wonder that so many talk hosts, columnists, and paid talking heads are against regulation of the media - a no-brainer. Then of course, they like to avoid policing themselves. So, that's what checks and balances are for.