It looks obvious

Jonathan argues that:

There is no difference between mandating a business to declare that it does not forbid smoking (including the costs and sanctions therein) and mandating a citizen to declare that he wishes to browse adult websites (including the costs and sanctions therein)

And I, obviously, nod my head in agreement. What many people that supports ban for "good reasons" fail to understand is that they accepting the moral position of the people that arguing for religiously or morally motivated bans. Both arguing that enforcing their ideology on others, because they know better or because they are morally superior or simply because they are the majority, restricting others liberty unjustly. Position that  is opposing restrictions on Internet browsing but supporting ban on smoking in restaurants is intellectually dishonest.