Hey look, here is a famous legal picture (in USA and most of the world anyway) of child abuse, of a naked child, that is far worse than at least most of the jailbait shit people would get sent to prison for. This girl did not consent to have her picture taken nor did she consent to have her village bombed by the United States. So if somebody looks at this and it arouses them should they be put down for having looked at the image? Did their looking at the image cause the girl to be napalmed all over again? Did their demand for pictures of children being abused, which led them to this picture, cause more villages to have bombs dropped on them? Or is the current viewing of this picture independent of the Vietnam war, in that it has no effect on either the war or the girl depicted in the picture? http://static.ibnlive.in.com/ibnlive/pix/sitepix/06_2012/napalm_vietnam_picture.jpg Only the most hardcore child pornography depicts events worse than this one, or naked children being subjected to greater abuse than being burned with napalm. So why is it legal for a sadistic pedophile to jack off to this picture, but illegal if I look at a self produced picture of some 15 year old girl flashing a mirror?