While I take your recommendation to heart, I have to insist that, by any plain reading of WP:NFCC#1, the image is keepable.  Let's look at the test in NFCC #1 & evaluate this image:
Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.
No free equivalent could be created to show what Berry looked like as a webcam pornographer at 16 or so no matter how we approach him as a 22-year-old anti-child pornography speaker & educator.  
If non-free content can be transformed into free material, this is done instead of using a fair-use defense.
The only way I could see to accomplish that with this photograph would be to ask Berry to permit its release under GFDL.  Permission would be impossible to obtain and it would be (to my mind) cruel even to ask Berry about it.
Non-free content is always replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available. "Acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose.
There is no freer equivalent available  Berry will never be a teenager again, and, since his appearance as a teenager is one of the issues raised by his critics, letting the reader draw their own conclusion seems more prudent & more neutral than telling them one way or the other what to think.
As a quick test, ask yourself: "Can this image be replaced by a different one, while still having the same effect?" If the answer is yes, then the image probably does not meet this criterion.
As the effect is inextricably tied to the age of the subject as depicted on the websites he administered, there is nothing that would have the same effect as depicting him as others saw him at the time.  It is intrinsically true that Berry portrayed himself a particular way when operating his websites.  The only neutrality we can have on the subject is to show the "facts"  Berry's image then  and let the reader draw their own conclusion.  
What say you?  

No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. If non-free content can be transformed into free material, this is done instead of using a fair-use defense. Non-free content is always replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available. "Acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose. (As a quick test, ask yourself: "Can this image be replaced by a different one, while still having the same effect?" If the answer is yes, then the image probably does not meet this criterion.)