Censorship? Why you say that like it's a bad thing! LOL It's not, and it has been with us for a long time and for good reason.
http://www.openschool.bc.ca/courses/...e/lesson2.html The Censor is one who catalogs and categorizes. Here you are simply recognizing reality by categorizing porn stuff, regular stuff and kiddie stuff.
In it's modern incarnation, a Censor is one who culls the most raunchy and outrageous words and images to protect the sensibilities of the general public. Movies have them. Video games have them, and some rap lyrics have them. Why shouldn't websites which are raunchy not have them?
Keep in mind that there are adult book stores and titty bars galore for ADULTS to go visit and get their fill of jollies. Don't get me wrong, I've looked at my share of the stuff but I am of the belief that I can do so as an adult. There are nude beaches, but generally they are marked as such and kept clearly distinct from bathing suit family beaches.
Kids, on the other hand, don't need to see porn without their parents permission when they are 15 (and the hormones are raging anyways) and they certainly don't need to see BJ's and fisting at the tender age of 5.
Censorship on the Net would be no more than what is found in the real world, so why the outrage?
Assuming that the rights of adults can be protected, as well as their anonymity, what harm can there be from keeping the images of pornographers separated from children? What better way to do that than migrate all porn to domains like .xxx, .sex, .cum, .tit, etc....
And, so as not to bring the entire Net down to the most uptight common denominator, relegate kids to exclusively .kid, .tot, .yut, .teen, .16, etc... This would make it real easy for schools, libraries and parents to set their general filtering software to the age of the child. That is to say, the kids see only content intended for the kids. As they move up to general audience, the filters can be relaxed incrementally. This would be something akin to keeping the kids in the own wading pool, while the adults get the real deal, with diving board and deep end.
Adults on the other hand, would have general and free access to the Net. The sole bit of censorship here is that anyone who puts out porn must warn the general public by posting exclusively to adult-demarcated domains. Truth in advertising.
The danger here is that someone might attempt to put an Adult Verification System (AVS) on all adult images, which would be unnecessary and destructive of privacy.
And further to calm fears of having to clear ones' expression through Uncle Sam first (very dicey, Constitutionally speaking), enforcement should only be after the fact. How many have seen a hyperlink on personal ads which say "Report this link" meaning 'report possible violations of the acceptable use policy.'
No problem in posting all the cows, midgets and steam-powered vibrators you want ****on an adult domain *** but woe betide the porn merchant who strays into .kid and .tot land.
One possible problem area would be amateurs posting pictures of their nude vacation in the South of France on the Net, or mommies breastfeeding. That's a gray area and one probably best left alone.
Otherwise, do you see how this could work? It is feasible, would not require any more change to the Net than it constantly goes through anyways, could be done without trenching upon the Rights to Free Speech any more so than requiring Walgreens to keep Playboy behind the counter and topless dancers from being seen from street level.
The idea to to keep the porn-for-profit types separated from kids, and to let the kids be kids.
I thank both...whatever.... 
Linear Mode
