George Orwell said, “Within any important issue, there are always aspects no one wishes to discuss.” What is Creator’s perspective?

This speaks to the issue that free speech is a kind of illusion. Speech is always highly selective. Where, when, with whom, and what about, represent often a kind of minefield. What this question speaks to, in realizing that there are many constraints on what people will say, even in polite company, the issue, at its base foundation, is quite dependent on the level of trust people feel about who they are with, whether it is a slow and careful interior analysis taking time to really work at the issue to make up one's mind about what it is safe to say on a given topic, or it can be quite a subconscious level, inner dialogue, and set of conflicting impulses, perhaps with an emotional overlay with feelings of anxiety. Whether thought about consciously or not, what is going on is the inner safety check that is quite standard in being a part of human conduct pretty much across the board. When there is a very, very close and trusting love relationship, people might feel quite open in blurting out almost anything that comes to mind, but even there, with a life partner who is trusted in almost every major respect without question, there may well be some topics known to be sensitive and perhaps a trigger point for the other party, and must need to be skirted around to maintain equanimity in the relationship and not breach trust to be a steadfast companion in all respects. The issue of trust is all about personal safety. Where will you be in your standing in the eyes of another if they learn more about your innermost thoughts, deep concerns, perhaps criticisms or reservations about them and their conduct? There are many ways to get on someone's nerves or have a kind of run-in with their bad side, so to speak, and stir up negativity that will boomerang and often be projected onto you, in turn, and undermine the relationship at least for a time. If a minor transgression, it might well be forgotten after a while. But if more serious, it might well bring the relationship to a halt until there is an apology or perhaps some level-headed and honest sharing to clear the air and explain oneself and, if done satisfactorily, might turn things around, but there are no guarantees that, once broken, trust can be put back together again. There are many levels reserved for many circumstances and the circle of influence around each individual and the people within varying distances in terms of being relied on or expendable. Almost any topic that stirs up emotion constitutes a kind of test situation. How one comports themselves in bringing such a topic up for discussion will reveal much about their ideas, perspectives, and inner nature. Perhaps it represents self-confidence, or even bravery under certain circumstances, and will earn respect, or perhaps fear, depending on who is watching and what might be perceived as being at stake. So every human encounter is a kind of foray into the unknown to some extent. The guarded nature of how people behave under such circumstances will reveal much about their character, discernment, and wisdom, and this is true even when the conversation might involve small matters, because people under observation will ultimately be judged unavoidably, and that is at least a function of the inner safety check that is always alive and well and functioning in the background. The slings and arrows of life reinforce the necessity for this. People learn early, and then often, people cannot necessarily be trusted. So people will typically have their antenna out, on the alert for signs of trouble and that will govern what takes place and what might be held back from being exchanged with others.