Regarding child exploitation, you need to talk with President Obama speaking recently at an LGBT community event which was opened by two preteen girls.

I absolutely agree that it would be a public victory if there was no exploitation whatsoever, especially of children. But the world is what it is. Throwing tens of thousands of people (and it will be tens of thousands, given the nature of the internet) in jail for seeing something seems to be pretty ugly, even if you disagree with their thoughts. Get the people who produce child exploitation.

And here's another reasons why this issue is just emotional hysteria (note, I in no way whatsoever condone the production of child pornography or the breaking of any laws):

1) A female child is starving in Africa. I'm alone. I look at her picture. My heart is broken. I feel extreme sadness. I caress her picture, talk to it, comfort it. Does the child now feel better? Is her stomach full? Is she comforted?

2) A father's son falls of his bike and skins his knee. The father sees this. He runs as quickly as he can to his own bedroom. He grabs a picture of his son and tells him it will be OK. He has tears in his eyes. Will he get points as a parent for his using the picture to transfer his love to his son?

3) Child Protective Services shows up at a residence where people have claimed that the parents are neglecting their children. They enter the home and hear terrible crying from the basement. But the parents argue that they are taking care of their children. CPS looks around the rooms and see wonderful pictures of their children on the walls surrounded by flowers. The pictures are clean, well-cared for. They also have pictures of their children at the dinner table with nice meals placed before them. Will CPS declare these as good parents and close the case?

4) A man is found guilty for a crime regarding child pornography. He is to be sentenced. He argues during sentencing that his picture be sent to jail. Will the judge acquiesce?

If so much harm can be inflicted through a picture why can't an equal amount of good? Why is no one celebrated for comforting a picture versus the actual child?

People keep arguing that child pornography should remain illegal because it exploits children. Two young girls under 10 recently opened an event for the LGBT community at which President Obama was the main speaker. I'm not sure that isn't child exploitation.

Yes, child pornography must (and likely will) be decriminalized.

First, for those of you who are overly emotional - I DO NOT condone molestation of any type.

1) Viewing an image does not re-victimize the victim. Here's why not:

- If a person doesn't know they are being exploited in the thoughts of another person's mind, how can they be victimized? How can thinking thoughts victimize a person to a point of being a crime. There must be an actual act, for which we already have laws.

- Does looking at a person of any age in public with sexual thoughts victimize them in a way that should be criminalized? Why should this be a crime in private?

- Is it the mere looking? or the thoughts? or both? that makes possession of this material criminal?

- If looking is what is criminal, why are such images stored and restored, viewed and reviewed during trials and by law enforcement everyday not criminal? Yes, they confiscate illegal drugs, but they don't use them. Can you really say, turning your eyeballs towards something is criminal? Is it two crimes to look twice? What about have two copies of the same image?

- Or is it the thoughts the person might be having? Do we really need to dissect this? Going to jail for thoughts? Sadly, we have such laws against thought. They are called hate crimes. We are a society demanding people be punished for their thoughts.

2) Viewing an image doesn't make a person more likely to act out what is in the image.

- If the opposite is true, we ought to destroy all means of communication given the uncountable images we see each day of very bad things.

- How can you prove that looking at an image causes the crime? Is looking the sole motivator? Or are the other factors? Are the other factors held as guilty? If not, why not? How can we measure any of this distribution of cause?

3) Not all people who view this material will actually hurt a child.

- I suspect we would be shocked to find out how many adults are attracted to children, which, by the way, is defined as 18 and below.

- Society is loaded with child exploitation. Just look around at the teen stars, movies, clothing standards, etc. If the looker is guilty of victimizing, so is society.

4) What is child pornography?

- Go find the 'official' definition and you will see nothing but subjectivity. Who here has the correct definition for all of society? How do you prove the definition is the correct one?

- Even a drawing can land a person in jail.

- Teen girls and boys are sending nude images of each other all over the country. They are being prosecuted for this. (Most of these images are sent by girls which makes them producers of child pornography. Production carries the longest jail sentence.) Yet, when they are together, they are petting and having sex every chance they get. They are looking at each other naked in person, then touching, then having sex. But the image they send to each other is a felony. The law is often more lenient towards youth in this area. But if you are an adult and you see such an image you will be prosecuted. It is almost like this is 18- porn. We have 18+ plus porn for adults, and 18- porn for youth. Don't anyone look across the boundary of 18 or you are a felon. Not only are you a felon, but you are thrown into the same category as the actual molesters and producers. In fact, many times the sentences are rougher for the lookers than the doers.

It is inevitable that child pornography will be decriminalized. The current laws are unconstitutional, highly emotional, and very difficult to support legally. Think of this: possessing an image is criminal. We already have laws to prosecute people who molest and harm children. That is a totally different category of crime. But having in your possession an image? How can possibly be. Yes, people might find sexual gratification from the image. Is that criminal? People get off to all sorts of things, none of which is criminal.

These laws will not stand and many will lose everything until the laws change. Only when this crime touches someone close to you will you ever really find the ability to logically think through the ridiculousness of criminalizing possession of child pornography.

My thoughts were a little all over the place, some of which might be useless. But can any of us really not see the conflict here?

Warning: DO NOT look below this line:

o>-< (to the left is an image of a naked 11-year old). Sorry, too late for you. I told you not to look. I drew the image. I therefore am a producer and will have a lighter sentence than you. You looked. You now have a record on your computer. You are in possession of child pornography. By law, you are now a felon. Minimum of 5 years is what Congress has thought appropriate for your crime. Society now sees no difference between you and a molester. In fact, many judges will sentence you to a longer time in jail, where you will be called a 'chomo.' Prepare to lose your job, your family, your life, and be raped in jail. This, all because you are in possession of a whole bunch of 1's and 0's that add up to be an image of the human body without clothing. We don't want to hear how you looked on accident. You are a pervert. Away with you filth.

You might laugh, but this is the law as it is now.