That's your principle of net neutrality.

Our net is already censored to remove illegal content, such as CP etc. (Or are you also advocating for illegal content? Because if this is some diehard libertarian thing, you can just stop now), so the idea that all data should be treated equally will never be met, nor should it.

If we go by wikipedia, which represents the 'liberal democratic' world view:

"Network neutrality, most commonly called net neutrality, is the principle that Internet service providers (ISPs) must treat all Internet communications equally, and not discriminate or charge differently based on user, content, website, platform, application, type of equipment, source address, destination address, or method of communication.[4][5]

With net neutrality, ISPs may not intentionally block, slow down, or charge money for specific online content. Without net neutrality, ISPs may prioritize certain types of traffic, meter others, or potentially block traffic from specific services, while charging consumers for various tiers of service.

The term was coined by Columbia University media law professor Tim Wu in 2003, as an extension of the longstanding concept of a common carrier, which was used to describe the role of telephone systems.[6][7][8][9] Net neutrality regulations may be referred to as "common carrier" regulations.[10] Net neutrality does not block all abilities that Internet service providers have to impact their customers' services. Opt-in/opt-out services exist on the end user side, and filtering can be done on a local basis, as in the filtration of sensitive material for minors.[11]"

Which has a focus on commerce, and that's where the debate that i've been watching in governments has been heading.

Hence me asking you for a source, not 'to be my legal clerk', but to establish the grounds of the fucking debate, you feckless cunt