A bit of Hal Duncan’s response:
The argument is bollocks. It’s a straw man argument belied by the reality. Paedophilia is abhorrent. Fascism is abhorrent. But if you tackle those subjects you’re more likely to be lauded for it than reviled for breaching the taboo — assuming you’re approaching them /as topics/ rather than just expressing some fucked-up personal freakery. If you do find it harder to get some Nazi kiddy porn story published, it’s going to be because of the ethics of /advocacy/, not a taboo that simply prescribes /representation/. It’s about /how/ you address those subjects, not /whether/ you address them at all. People berating you for writing Magic Negroes or Mandingos, Castrating Bitches or Depraved Faggots — that’s not censorship. Not being able to find a buyer for Nazi kiddy porn bullshit is not a free speech issue. The imperative being applied here is to treat the subject well, not to avoid it completely. It’s not about taboos.
And then, in the comments, from John Wright:
What you call taboo is a dike, that once held back the sea of foetid shit in which we now all wade. And the smug yet superficial people who call themselves bold for breaking taboos bemoan the fact that we don’t have enough porn in our lives, not enough polygamy or sadomasochism. There is no stopping point, once the dikes are down. Having developed a taste for shit, a delight for the scent, their hunger knows no satiation.