Let's also say, hypothetically, that the subject of the manuscript was going to receive some serious national media attention brought on by a string of legal proceedings, possibly giving the nonfiction narrative some major publicity.
In this situation, assume for a moment that I have the opportunity to make known some very unpleasant, dark, secrets about a LDS apologist who is beloved by some. Note that I don't particularly want to share these details, but only because they would be extremely damaging to this apologist's reputation and paints them in a very, very negative Nibley-esque light.
It's a relevant aspect of the story that could be omitted, but should it?
Consider:
FARMS flat out attacks and seeks to destroy critic's reputations, not excluding women or those that claim to be victims of abuse. Besides calling abuse victims liars, they minimize the incidents and often blame the accuser (i.e calling Nibley's molestation "incest").
The editor of FARMS, who would be entangled in the hypothetical legal proceedings too, has already (not hypothetically) made intentionally false, libelous statements in order to damage my reputation in conjunction with this subject: Ethics Scenario
The potentially unlucky LDS apologist has never personally attacked me or my reputation publicly, but some of his/her acquaintances have and probably will continue to do so. Depending on the success - again, all hypothetical - of the book, I wouldn't be surprised if he was coerced into joining them.
So, do you let it out and let the chips fall where they may? Or do you do a favor for an apologist who, at best, hasn't done you any?
Keep in mind, this apologist could, quite likely, be commissioned Boyd Jay Petersen-style to review the book and chose to disparage the author, FARMS-style.
Hypothetically, of course.
