Even if Jonasson's claims are checked out by evidence, nannying a country's population by censoring offensive material is not the right course of action. You do not change public perception or progress society through censorship.
The internet is a new phenomena that has given individuals unprecedented power to indulge in all forms of media. Instead of arbitrarily obstructing information that they deem to be corrupting, the Icelandic government should recommend their citizens to learn the psychology behind desire and addiction [1], perhaps even Stoic philosophy [2], and how to set up a web filter for their children. They should trust that the adults of their country are generally smart enough to think for themselves and do the right thing; anything less is an insult to their intelligence and is likely to foster a mistrust of their government.
I really like social experimentation (to a sane degree, of course). Why shouldn't Iceland ban pornography (if it does so through a democratic process)? I'd quite like to see what happens.
Iceland shouldn't ban pornography because that is forcing someone's personal value upon a whole country based on questionable reasoning. "[Ogmundur Jonasson] argues that easy access to online porn increases the frequency and severity of sexual violence against women and causes longterm damage for children who view it at an early age." As another commenter mentioned, there is more evidence that porn reduces sexual violence, and it is easy and free to set up a porn filter for children.
I am not arguing that porn is a good thing, but that it's not a government's job to force their subjective moral values upon people by telling them what information they are not allowed to see.
If Iceland's parliament were in fact "forcing someone's personal value upon a whole country", then I would also consider it to be morally wrong. However, the democratic process is there to guard against this sort of behaviour. It doesn't always work, but you haven't shown that it is not working in this case.
I believe you are referring to the reference (haha) to the article in /Slate/. I read that article and didn't find it hugely compelling. Some good points were made in the article, but they weren't even close to a complete argument.
Again, I agree that 'it's not a government's job to force their subjective moral values upon people'. Firstly, when it comes to morality, it's pretty much all subjective. (I actually believe that there is an objective morality; it's just really hard to convince anyone else that my morality is it.) It is, however, a government's job to enforce the morality of the people.
Just because bad things happen in countries where pornography is banned doesn't mean they happen because pornography is banned.
I believe you are saying that banning pornography is an indicator of a bad government and the other governments that have made the same decision are a pretty bad lot. This may be true.
But my point remains: it is a government's job to enforce the values of society. It just depends what we see as our most important values (is it free speech or moral decency, in this case?).
The internet is a new phenomena that has given individuals unprecedented power to indulge in all forms of media. Instead of arbitrarily obstructing information that they deem to be corrupting, the Icelandic government should recommend their citizens to learn the psychology behind desire and addiction [1], perhaps even Stoic philosophy [2], and how to set up a web filter for their children. They should trust that the adults of their country are generally smart enough to think for themselves and do the right thing; anything less is an insult to their intelligence and is likely to foster a mistrust of their government.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKDFsLi2oBk
[2] http://www.amazon.com/Guide-Good-Life-Ancient-Stoic/dp/01953...