Actually I would like to add on to this. You say that the difference between the picture of the naked vietnamese girl burning from napalm is different from a picture of a naked 15 year old flashing her mirror because people view the vietnamese girl picture as an event but view the naked 15 year old as an object (instead of the event of a 15 year old girl flashing her mirror I suppose). So this really boils down to intent. Do you think it should be illegal for somebody to view the image of the vietnamese girl if they view her as an object for sexual gratification? Because I am sure there are some people out there who would be sexually aroused by that photograph. But I have already proven that you cannot really have intent as your differentiation factor! Because you are okay with the police looking at CP because their intent is to bust pedophiles who look at CP, but you would not be okay with the police molesting children if their intent was to bust child molesters. So you cannot really say that it is the intent of looking at an image, or how a person perceives an image, that causes the act of looking at the image to be bad. In my mind looking at an image is looking at an image and molesting a child is molesting a child, it makes no difference if a person looks at an image with the intent of helping children or if a person molests a child with the intent of helping children. It is the action that matters, not the intent, and I imagine you must agree with this if you agree that the police should not be allowed to molest children to prevent child molestation.