(answered at greater length elsewhere, but) This is isomorphic to saying "describing what is morally reprehensible about the God of the Old Testament causes severe distress to some theists, so atheists shouldn't talk about it either". Sunlight disinfects.
I'd discuss the moral reprehensibility of God (in both the new and the old testament) if and only if I saw the estimated benefit in attempting to deconvert those people as outweighing the disutility of their potential distress.
If you see such benefits in telling the people of the basilisk, and are weighing them against the disutility of the potential distress caused by such information, and the benefits indeed outweigh the hazard, then fine.
If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post, even in Discussion, it goes here.