That reminds me of a similar mindset among reenactors. Some say that research of atypical things shouldn't be brought forth, because the less careful reenactor will use it out of context and wear/carry/do it where it wasn't historically. There's emphasis on keeping everything typical and generic.
My argument has been that stifling information is never a good thing, and the worst or least-interested people shouldn't be leading the direction of research. If a person with new information presents the context accurately, it's not their responsibility if someone else takes it out of context.
Similarly, if something makes war look bad, trying to stifle that information won't work in the long run, and is against the very purpose of studying history. If the information is presented in context, it's not the fault of the researcher that others take it out of context, whether it's "those people" claiming every servant is a black soldier or every failed freedman's camp is a sign that slavery was a superior institution. Or whether it's anti-war people claiming that a certain inevitable level of PTSD or rape of civilians is too high a price to pay for war. (I'd hope pro-war people are aware of the costs as well as the benefits and have decided it's worth the price, rather than trying to remain unaware.)
Telling researchers not to research and write about their findings just won't end well. And if some people are interested in a topic but uneducated about it, then we need to educate them, not keep information from them like slaveowners confiscating abolitionist literature.