This is the same premise we've seen already in Finland.

First, you introduce some level of mandatory filtering for ISP's in the name of protecting the children. (The fact that shoving one's head in the sand does nothing to protect the children is never acknowledged.) Check.

Then you offload the collection and maintenance of the list to an unaccountable third party, who is not bound by law on what they can introduce on the list. Furthermore, you make sure that the police are not only understaffed to deal with any fallout - they are actively avoiding any and all responsibility. After all, the list is provided by an outside party. There is no judicial overview, no audit trail and absolutely no way to tell who was responsible to introducing erroneous or just opinionated domains on the list. Items are added to the list far more aggressively than they are removed from it. Check.

As a logical next step, you start to build up propaganda to the tune of "inclusion on the filter list implies criminal and/or abusive activities." Ending up on the list or any reason is stigmatizing, regardless of the reason or validity. Check.

After that it's trivial to start snuffing out content you don't like. Just add the domains that deal with inconvenient subjects and if there is too big a backlash for any single item, backpedal on that particular domain with a lame apology, while at the same time emphasizing that such errors are unavoidable but will be eventually corrected - as the very case itself is shown to prove. Note the disregard for the previous point, where ending up on the list is bad enough for any entity not big enough to get non-negligible public support. Check.

Once you have the filtering in place and opposition firmly silenced and/or marginalised, you start adding entirely new categories which are legal but just otherwise inconvenient for any reason. Check.

All of this has already happened in Finland. The one thing the advocates of the filtering system did not anticipate was that the filter system would become so universally loathed that it was the operators who started to push back against maintaining it. Nowadays the list is not really maintained any longer, but it is still in place, and as one can imagine, used to silence at least one source of criticism.

The saddest thing about these filtering systems is that they really do absolutely nothing to aid the victims of the genuinely repulsive and dangerous trades. (Such as trafficking, child prostitution, etc.)

Don't get me wrong. Child pornography is despicable. It is repulsive. And it is most certainly criminal. The recordings of the acts are themselves 100% evidence of a children getting abused in the most horrific way one can imagine. Blocking a site that deals with such filth may help the individual doing the blocking in the short term, but that's it. If they don't report the incidence to international police forces and assist in tracking down the actual dealers, they are in my eyes guilty of criminal negligence of astronomical proportions. By blocking the content but not doing anything else, they are actively helping the perpetrators to continue their abuse and allow them to find more victims.