So, the disclaimer is a great step in presenting legacy content; but the problem is no one seems to be willing to admit that there is nuance in how far other steps should be taken. I would make the argument that there is no "one-size-fits-all" easy solution that one or both sides wish for/demand. Judiciousness is required. I would argue that there is some content that deserves to be remanded to the dustbin of history. Works of literature with incidental racism/sexism/homophobia/etc. doesn't clear that high bar, but if we're talking about works where the raison d'etre is to promote hatred and/or bigotry? I would consider it unethical to release such to the public for entertainment purposes.
This of course leads to cries regarding who does or does not get to be the judge. There are sensitivity readers, which have worked well for modern works; why not sensitivity distributors? Such folx would be best positioned not just to determine the worthiness of each work, but also to more carefully craft personalized disclaimers with specific warnings, rather than a simple generic boilerplate disclaimer for everything.
This is a different conversation, mind you, from platforming/profiting living bigots and/or sex criminals; which is a whole other issue that actually does have an easy, one-size-fits-all solution: don't
