I guess no one has a right to publicity but I feel everyone should have equal access to generate media attention for their book. The media can decide what it wants to cover and the media consumer can decided what he or she wants to watch, listen to, or read – and decide how they should act as a result of what they consumed.
So when bad people, lousy books, or dangerous or vile messages get media attention, things can get ugly. But who can be the arbiter of such things? It’s the same issue with free speech. We let people say what they want, without threat of arrest, because we can’t have courts determine who can say what.
But free speech has its limitations – just look at libel laws or laws against inciting riots or yelling fire in a crowded movie theater. Further, society punishes those who speak out. The government may not lock you away for saying your boss is an idiot, but that boss can fire you. Words can be viewed as threats, and such threats can get you put in jail.
So should we be more tolerant, as publicists, in what we agree to promote? The PR industry would be cut by 95% if it only promoted things worthy of society’s attention or that its practitioners agreed with.
Bad people and crappy books deserve publicity. But they don’t have a right to success.