[flagged]
And wouldn't it be censorship to prevent me from publishing a clean version of Huck Finn? If his uncensored story exists, and my publishing of an alternative version in no way removes those works from circulation, there's not really an argument in place that I'm censoring anything.
But ownership in any sense irrelevant. Being the owner of a work does not preclude censorship. If the author himself censors his work, as Roald Dahl did do, that is still censorship.
Regarding intellectual property? Yes, that would be perfectly fine. That's an entirely law based creation, not a moral one.
> And it would be morally wrong to make changes to something once I own it, if I wasn't the originator of the thing?