https://www.theguardian.com/society/2003/jan/14/childprotection.rodliddle
Here's something a Q activist "discovered". An article apparently advocating to legalize viewing child porn.

On it's own, it's a bit weak. It was written 20 years ago, and it was a reaction to a new phenomena.

It's problematic in the sense that it doesn't become "okay", simply because a usage of it isn't causally linked to abuse.

If someone was viewing something which didn't involve actual abuse (hey, U.K. censors got upset over a controversial historic German band cover, although no one has ever been *arrested* for it), this article might've been more persuasive.

That said, what is with these people and their wild conspiracies...

Can't someone just be an obscure writer (seemingly a former academic) voicing a controversial opinion?

What really throws doubt on this Q conspiracy fuel though is as follows:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Liddle
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/jan/08/rod-liddle-outspoken-figure
Despite nominally being a "leftist", he holds many conservative positions.

He is also infamous for writing incendiary pieces.

https://www.theguardian.com/profile/rodliddle
Also, The Guardian dropped his column not long after this article after running it for years.