That, of course, assumes that encouraging discussion is what one wants to do when "rebuilding" a country.
It is easier to ignore the smut and do nothing about except in those places, as you have pointed out, where a child runs a greater risk of being exposed to it. There are places where an adult are more likely to exposed to only when he wants to be. We can assume the adult knows what he's doing and that's fine.
Basically, that's how it works here. Control of pornography, rather than it's outright ban, is an example of a market based solution to a problem working better than any government solution. The government bans pornography from the airwaves, where access is totally public and all one has to do is turn on the television and see what's there. The "entertainment" that comes over the airwaves is incredibly banal, so if you want something more thought provoking you shell out the cost of a video rental or a night at the movies. Better yet, read a book. I don't have a television set in my place and I don't miss it. If you really want to make sure your children aren't exposed to pornography, then first your internet options can be set accordingly and, second, there is computer software that will also restrict access. The children are protected and the rule for the adults is liberty. The government doesn't waste a lot of time or taxpayer money controlling something it can't control anyway.
However, I don't think Vladimir Vladomirovich is satisfied with this type of libertarian approach. He'd rather censor the internet to keep smut and other undesirable material off of it and fine people for using naughty language. Here's an example of something that pushes the envelope. Meanwhile, he can always jail human rights activists, like the band members of Pussy Riot.
Did I say that I just don't trust Vladimir Vladomirovich?
= new reply since forum marked as read