You're allowed to think of me as ugly, not like me, call me names, all of that's totally fine! What I'm confused about is, when the original work remains completely available such as what the article we're talking about says, why you would care about me also wanting to have access to a less offensive version of the work?
You retain access to the original work, and I get a watered down version that's easier for me to read to my kids at bedtime. Feels like a win/win?
Why don't I have the same freedom of expression in your mind that you seem so intent on protecting on behalf of a dead guy?
> when the original work remains completely available
Does it? If a library has a copy of the offensive censored one, they might not buy the original. There's only a limited amount of money available, every censored copy purchased means one less good copy.
...yes you do? The title of the article literally includes, "Original books to be kept in print".
Also, you can currently purchase every single Roald Dahl book on Amazon for at most ~$10, so in so many ways it's incorrect to say you lose access to Roald Dahl's original works.
You retain access to the original work, and I get a watered down version that's easier for me to read to my kids at bedtime. Feels like a win/win?
Why don't I have the same freedom of expression in your mind that you seem so intent on protecting on behalf of a dead guy?