I wouldn't use the word exposing for something that was already in a book and known by enough people to be an annoyance.

I also wouldn't use the phrase private details for "she talked with some guy one night, nothing ever came of it".

There may be more to the story than the innocent "nothing came of this" that the protagonist originally wrote.

But if there was, it was explicitly not in the book. And the article author couldn't have published anything about that because he wouldn't know.

So the worst case is he republished an innocent story about someone that also had a non-innocent story. That doesn't make sense for a ban.

Alternative version:

Writer was banned from remote British island with 275 inhabitants and a gene pool restricted to 7 families. Apparently he wrote about a lieutenant's memoir in which he mentions being interested in a local girl during WW2. The woman is still alive and her husband did not like the story being written about.

The writer is not satisfied with this rather simplistic ending to his article, so he creates a narrative of insensitive tourists that make natives sad. The final message is that tourism is a plague on society and we should all just stay at home.