The most critical concerns regarding regulatory strategies are fundamental freedoms of expression and the right to personal autonomy which includes interference with the user's right to the Internet. There is also a general fear that the Internet is covered by political censorship. The creation of regulatory bodies and their mechanisms has slowly invaded several EU Member States (France, Italy, United Kingdom, etc.) and sporadically throughout the world (Middle East, Australia, China, etc.) and has inevitably led to the blocking of several types of content (also known as "mission creep"). This has sparked fear among members of society, especially those concerned about safeguarding their fundamental rights, and this has led to the creation of several anti-censorship organizations. After studying these organizations, a number of important questions have been proposed. First, there is the topic of overblocking and underblocking caused by blocking and filtering mechanisms. The reason why the blocking strategy is so controversial in its application is because, on the one hand On the Internet, there may be more than 50 websites sharing the same IP address and it is technically impossible for an ISP to determine what content is contained in the names domain names assigned to a specific IP address. So when ISPs had to comply with the law, the result was quite a large number of blocks of harmless content on websites. BT's Cleanfeed system apparently uses URL/IP blocking to prevent access to the list of sites identified on the IWF blocklist. An analogy can be drawn with the incident of Steve Marshall (an English travel agent living in Spain) and his commercial websites targeting Italian and French tourists. Its domain names were... in the center of the paper......ROPA - European Commission - Homepage. P. 11, nd Web. 10 January 2011.[2002] 1 Cr App R 6Johnson, T. (2006), 'Child pornography in Canada and the United States: the myth of right answers', Dalhousie Law Journal, 29, p. 377R v H [2005] EWCA Crim. 3037S. 1466A(a)(2) PROTECT ActFree Speech Coalition v Reno [1999] 198 F.3d 1083, 1102Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition [2002] 535 US 234, at 250See s. 1, Child Protection Act 1978 and s. 62, 65, Coroners and Justice Act 2009R v Oliver [2003] 1 Cr App R 28, at 468Howitt, D. (1995) Pedophiles and Sexual Offenses Against Children. New York: Wiley & Sons"Incest". P. Toons Forum. Np, nd Web. January 11. 2011. .