I think “the world stays basically as it is except there are no easily accessible dangerous books” is a fabricated option. You can have a world where you can publish a book about any topic that is not explicitly forbidden (in which case there will be books that are not forbidden that are worse than the forbidden ones), or a world in which it is forbidden to publish a book that is not explicitly permitted (and there is a pretty solid historical precedent that whatever organization has that power will abuse it).
“Require insurance” does sound like a solid middle ground, but in practice I expect that being insured will just cause the person publishing to be the target of lawsuits independent of whether they’re actually at fault for the alleged harm (because getting insured proves that the defendant knew there was a risk, and also means the defendant is actually capable of paying out whatever award the judicial system comes up with, even if said award is absurdly high).
I think “the world stays basically as it is except there are no easily accessible dangerous books” is a fabricated option. You can have a world where you can publish a book about any topic that is not explicitly forbidden (in which case there will be books that are not forbidden that are worse than the forbidden ones), or a world in which it is forbidden to publish a book that is not explicitly permitted (and there is a pretty solid historical precedent that whatever organization has that power will abuse it).
“Require insurance” does sound like a solid middle ground, but in practice I expect that being insured will just cause the person publishing to be the target of lawsuits independent of whether they’re actually at fault for the alleged harm (because getting insured proves that the defendant knew there was a risk, and also means the defendant is actually capable of paying out whatever award the judicial system comes up with, even if said award is absurdly high).