I am cautious about taking this thread too far off-topic, but is not all state action a step along the path to controlling society?
Imagine, if you will, a world where contracts were not enforced by the state through courts but instead were free to break them as they saw fit. If the state came in and decided to start using its monopoly on violence to enforce contracts, people could say, “The state is coming in, trying to control society and dictate morality.” After all, why should the state enforce a principle of honour and keeping one’s word?
Instead, as with every liberal principle, I think that we assume no action a priori, and then measure whether the perceived benefits outweigh the costs. Just as total authoritarianism is not a good thing, neither is anarchy. Human nature is self-destructive and so should be moderated by the state.
I would add, that to me, a ban on porn would not mean criminalising the users, but the distributors and makers.