Pornography and Free Agency

The Volokh Conspiracy has a good analysis of the government's options in the 'war against pornography' and their relative effectiveness.

Put simply, pornography will always exist as long as there are enough people who want it--a clientele, if you will. (The same is true of the illegal drug trade--simple supply and demand)

Assuming that (a) pornography is bad but that (b) pornography will always exist (as above) and that (c) government or organizational efforts to eliminate pornography without eliminating the demand for pornography (which is essentially impossible) will always fail, what exactly is my personal responsibility towards supporting or not supporting anti-pornography laws (existing or hypothetical, as in the ones Volokh discusses)? In other words, if I believe the cause is worthy but that any effort will ultimately fail to solve the problem, how far am I willing to allow the government to go? Filtering websites? Prosecuting porn creators? Prosecuting porn users? At what point does the principle of free agency (mine and others) conflict against fighting for 'moral good'? How far should I support eliminating people's rights to view porn (if they want to) even if I believe it's 'better' for them not to?

For 'anti-pornography' people, there are several distinct attitudes one can take.
1) I will not view pornography myself, but don't care nor actively oppose if anyone else does.
2) I will not view pornography myself, and will actively speak out against it and encourage others not to view it either.
3) I will not view pornography myself, and actively campaign for laws and restrictions that will not allow other people to view it, even if they want to.

Obviously, (1) is the pure 'free agency' perspective--everyone should be free to make their own decision and then accept the consequences, good or bad, and it's not my place to make moral judgements for anyone other than me. (3) puts 'moral good' ahead of all else, saying a reduction of people's ability to see porn even if they want to is worth infringing on the principle of free agency (saving people from themselves, essentially). (2) is more or less right in the middle, encouraging moral good without specifically taking away anyone's free agency. Option (2) seems all well and good, but unfortunately doesn't answer the real question. When anti-pornography laws are proposed by (3) people, should (2) people vote for or against them (being more or less forced to choose (1) or (3), essentially)?

I'm not proposing a answer, because I really don't know... It's easy to lean towards Attitude #1 and say it's not my place to interfere in other people's lives, but I still feel a responsibility to stand up for 'correct moral principles' also. It would be nice to remain in (2) world forever, but I get the feeling that, just like a hen laying an egg on the top of a roof, sooner or later you have to fall one way or the other...

UPDATE: Times & Seasons has picked up on the Volokh post as well. See also Mark A. Kleiman's discussion of the issue, including additional links.