That's what my first thought was. Ignore for a second how ridiculous it would be to force a particular type of content into a different channel meant for a particular type of protocol. How do you define porn? Topless women? What if it's a breast cancer page? I know some religious types who would find those images objectionable even though they are intended to be educational, not titillating.
What if it's just text? Like text on a safe sex page describing how to properly use a condom. That would be objectionable to some people and might even be viewed by them as porn. Should that go onto the "Porn Channel" too?
Of course, the reasonable (but not likely supported by this guy) option would be to use a filtering system like NetNanny or any of the other few dozen programs out there to block porn from your computer if you so desire. If he wants, he can even form a "Clean Internet Service Provider" company that pre-filters porn for its users so they don't need to install any software.
The Internet's not like the Wild West, it's like New York City. Sure there are some really seedy areas that you don't want to walk down and sure there might be some "services" offered that would offend a lot of people. However, there is also a lot of positive areas (like museums and the like). On the Internet, it is actually easier to avoid the seedy/offensive sections and keep to the sections you approve of. (You won't see any "cyber hookers" hanging out on BBR, for example.... At least none that I've noticed so far.
)