As long as the two sacred principles of "No pictures!" and "Not
censored!" stand in rigid opposition to each other, the conflict will
continue. The "show" solution (with an appropriate note) or even
putting all the images on the "depictions" page (again, with a
prominent note) seem like reasonable solutions. As far as the
"depictions" article is concerned, I can't see how that article can
exist without images.
If this is a "slippery slope", it's because "not censored!" is often
interpreted to mean "dare to be offensive". It is taken to be a highly
POV-pushing statement about how public discourse is to be conducted.
In the present case it represents a statement of defiance against
"fundamentalist" Islam; more generally, it can be taken, with some
justification, as the adoption of a particular liberal, secular,
Western public morality. This is not the only sign of this: we also
tolerate POV-dubious advocacy projects such as LBGT and animal rights,
but I think it would be very hard for there to be a (say) Wikiproject
Fundamentalism, except as a sort of authorized hatchet workplace. I'm
not saying that I want to step up to that really huge issue, because I
simply don't have the stamina for it. I am saying that in the instant
case, I think we can make a reasonable concession and stick to it.