If the image was from The Joy of Sex, as was alluded to somewhere, then classifying it as "pornography" is indeed pretty absurd. No question.
But...context is everything, no? And in a satiric thread about The Glorious Whiteness Music Of Kate Smith, I don't know that such an image "works" as well as does the velveteen image of a faceless copulation (maybe it's seeing the faces of people as they fuck that upsets people that extra bit) from the inside of a Herbie Mann album does in the context of a sexy album cover thread. or any other thread dedicated to sexy/sexual images on album covers. Hell, the sexy album cover thread comes with a warning that there are sexually explicit images present. The last thing anybody would expect to find in the other thread is a picture of two people intercoursing. Removing the image was a judgment call, as was labeling it "pornographic" (and even that has been removed now, no?). The first can be reasonably defended, the second...not so much. Not at all, really.
No matter. If your reputation via Internet search engines is what you're concerned about, the issue could have been pursued privately (& aggressively) w/o leaving the cyber-equivalent of a paper trail, which is exactly what is being created through these discussions.
You can argue principle all you want, but the reality of how what you're concerned about actually works operates quite apart from those principles. If you got a beef with that, don't expect resolution here. You're gonna have to go to Mr. Internet to get that one fixed, and last I heard, ain't nobody getting in to see him. So play with the deck on the table, not the one you wished was on the table. "Cause that deck ain't gonna make it here any time soon.