Idiots
First of all, kadeshaderow, you're an idiot. The post was talking about the general concept of possession of child pornography, not of the specific case at hand. Undoubtedly, as libertarians we surely agree that the current manner of sex offender status as is used in the United States has gone way too far innumerable times, and that the general age of consent in America is too high as well.

As for the issue of child pornography itself, we most all would agree that the creation of such child porn would be illegal. It gets easier and easier to define what is a 'child' the younger you go. Clearly a twelve year old is a child who is most likely not capable of consenting. The reason it gets harder and harder to define is because childhood has been extended in modern society, and we now have the teenage years where people are considered to be between childhood and adulthood.

So, if a child cannot consent, then the creation of pornography would be illegal. That is, however, not the point of contention that is up for debate. The debate was on the possession of child pornography.

First, we must understand the difference between malum prohibitum and malum in se. Malum prohibitum is the set of laws where the act in question is only bad because it is forbidden and does not actually harm any victims. Malum in se, on the other hand, is the set of laws where the act in question does in fact harm the victim, or damage the victim's property.

While one could conceivably liken the issue somewhat to possession of stolen goods, this is not a proper analogy. In economics the radio would be considered rivalrous in consumption. If someone possesses the radio, it is not necessarily possible for someone else to be in possession of the radio. The child pornography on the other hand is a digital rendering, and whether it is sold or obtained for free via the internet, the pornography itself does not violate the rights of the child.

As I have stated before, the creation of child pornography is clearer a violation of the rights of the child because the child cannot consent. In modern society, the definition of child is hard to define, but I would propose that the age would be somewhere below the age of sixteen (if you can drive a car, you can have sex and videotape it!). Of course this ought to be flexible to allow for relationships between people of similar ages. The question, however, was the possession.

For the reasons stated above, I don't believe that the possession itself should be a crime, nor should it constitute mandatory counseling. Even if they are perverts, they are not violating the rights of the child. Those that create the porn, however, should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.