Nowhere did I say it was "unreasonable". I asked what it meant, specifically. What does it look like if you are "not allowed"? What is the fear here? There seem to be no commitment to what this is actually about.
No. Lacking an answer to what it means to be "allowed", I moved forward with an assumed one that seemed common enough in similar discussions to be a reasonable guess.
Yes. Since there is no legal impediment to publishing such, I moved along with "allowed" being about the criticism or pushback - you are "allowed" if the public doesn't give you a lot of criticism or pushback on the work.
And then, I believe my assertion holds - if you don't want pushback, it needs to be pretty darned good stuff. This should not be controversial.
Again, this is why I asked what "allow" meant. What do you expect to happen if you are "allowed" or "not allowed"? Because, this right here reads like you mean an actual legal impediment, of which there is exactly none at this time in the US, at least.
And by "you" I really mean "publishers". As far as I am aware, this is a theoretical argument for you, personally.
You realize that criticism is as much expression as artwork is, right? So, if you are allowed to publish it (for whatever meaning of the word), others should be allowed to criticize it. A position that is, in effect, "I get to talk, but if you don't like it you should not consume it and shut up," is not an option.