I am now going to take your bait and say something generally not accepted, or rather, expose myself to more of your emotional arguments, by questioning your values.

In her letter to the editor (in swedish), she states, among other things, the following:

“Second, there are unfortunately huge amounts of strong images available. If we do not act, we risk that people visiting uncontrolled [sic!] web sites will regard viewing such images as normal and acceptable.”

Credits to ChrisK for the translation.

This whole argument is based upon the fear of changed values. She expresses directly her fear of her values becoming a thing of the past, a fear of a new society where paedophilia is accepted. The problem I have with this, partially due to excessive studying of philosophy, is how her opinion is relative to the existing values. According to her, the mere existence of such images on the web, is enough to turn everybody into thinking it is okay. Now, if that would be possible, I am quite certain there would be no reason to object.
Let me explain: If indeed the explicit images would be enough to turn everybody into accepting paedophilia, it would become okay, and thus objectors would be irrelevant. Preventing that change would mean that it would be the natural way to go to accept it. What her objection then expresses is the fear of a minority becoming obsolete. This is actually so stupid I have a hard time explaining it properly.

I will make an attempt at an analogy instead. Say playing with Lego would be considered by almost everybody as the purest form of evil there is. A group is advocating that it is okay to play with Lego. Some of the anti-Lego supporters say that the Lego-supporters should be censored, or silenced, because otherwise people might start playing with Lego.
The point here is, if playing with Lego becomes accepted by a majority, it will be okay, and there will be no problem with playing with Lego any more.

Likewise, although my analogy sucked, if it would indeed be so, that paedophilia would become accepted by everybody, it would not be an issue any longer, as it would be accepted and seen as normal. It is only before that happens, people think it would be bad. When it finally would be accepted, it would be good. So it is a fear of something bad becoming [seen as] good. This also partially renders the arguments against it as useless, for if it is so, that it will become commonly accepted (unless we censor the whole Internetz and shit), then it will be seen as all good.

However, there is no such chance. That would mean that images alone would be able to brainwash the entire human population into thinking it is good, which of course is a total impossibility. Sarcasm aside, it is still just the fantasies of an EU commissionaire, an invented threat in order to justify the own arguments.

The actual problem is not that everybody are potential paedophiles, but that arguments with strong emotions (paedophilia, terrorism) are used in order to justify the infringement of our freedoms and censoring of the Internet.

We cannot seriously let some crazed politicians destroy because of threats invented by themselves. Seriously.