All your vaunted legalism is wonderful, but let's examine the case where there is a simple and innocent explanation for this. You pick the explanation, but just suppose for the moment that the kid is not guilty of knowingly soliciting or acquiring child pornography.
So the jury acquits him. Wonderful. His record is now clean. However, he now lives squarely in one of the inner circles of Hell. His picture has been published in the newspaper. He might as well quit school because he is thoroughly screwed there. No one will have a thing to do with him. These things have a way of following you around. Even if he moves somewhere else, it is unlikely he will ever escape this. There is no chance anyone will ever trust him around children. It is not hard to picture the situation where he is harassed for the rest of his life by the Child Protection Nazis who frequent local governments.
Great. All your legalism, both biblical and civil, have left you with a clean conscience, but this kid, if he is innocent, faces a life of misery and pain.
I think you might have missed the point of the passage from Matthew, my friend. I know you have missed the point of the Fourth Amendment. What a shame.
You've got me. I don't share your liberal tolerance for this kind of behavior (and, by the way, all of you defenders of the 4th Amendment - there WAS a search warrant):
"Officers said hundreds of pictures and streaming videos of child pornography were found on Mincey's computer after it was seized from his dorm room. According to a search warrant, the computer contained video clips of adult men having sex with 6- and 7-year-old girls."
http://www.nbc17.com/news/3901821/detail.html
Well, I suppose we have two choices. We can infringe upon the right of the press, and demand they only publish information about people convicted of crimes. Or we can be so worried abut someone's reputation, should they possibly be innocent of the crime that we suspect they are committing, and ignore child porn on computers.
I don't like either one, frankly.