We see an overwhelming majority of people listening to explicit music and watching R-rated movies, although they might not be suitable for most audiences. Movie directors and music producers include warning labels and signs when they anticipate sensitivity to the content. Though these warning labels seek to prevent people from being exposed to specific content, does this armor shield threaten the free and open society we want to achieve? Despite this possibility, warning labels that signal potentially provocative and troubling content should be implemented to protect immature audiences and those who may be severely affected by viewing possibly disturbing content, but to the extent that they do not fully interfere with the openness of society. 

With the rising demand for media to embrace a special safeguard for viewers, such as trigger warnings and warning labels, content producers have taken on the responsibility of trigger warnings more and more as society progresses. Accordingly, for those who need them, producers should utilize warnings to protect immature audiences and those who may be severely affected by certain movies or music. Across the globe, movies and music have implemented trigger warnings when their content includes the mention or screening of sexual abuse, suicide, and other troubling content. These warnings are not typical pre-show advisories; they are not simply informing audiences of troubling scenes to manage their expectations. Instead, warnings target those who have experienced the trauma portrayed on screen, the people most likely to be triggered, and deter them from viewing. When producers create content, they air it for the masses and cannot select a target audience and discriminate against others. Since their content may potentially offend or trigger fight-or-flight modes when people are exposed to words or imagery that remind them of trauma they have experienced, producers anticipate the need to warn their audiences of sensitive content. If producers revoked trigger warnings, they would face the consequences of severely impacting their audience members with outcomes ranging from mild upsetness to a drastic mental episode resulting from viewing the content. 

Additionally, because warning labels, such as parental advisory messages, signify explicit content that may be inappropriate for children, they are necessary to protect immature audiences from content that may include derogatory language, intense violence, and other adult themes. Many children who are permitted to or discreetly watch R Rated movies suffer from many psychological effects, such as recurrent nightmares, bedtime fears, disruption of concentration, and even a fearful view of the world. The parental advisory warning can prevent at least a portion of children from viewing this unsuitable content, shielding their youthfulness and reducing the likelihood of suffering from such a traumatic experience and lingering impression of fear that these movies can cause. Hence, warning labels provide crucial sensitivity information that equips people and parents with the liberty to make informed decisions about their viewing choices. 

Though warning labels are necessary, producers should not allow them to interfere with promoting an open society. In some parts of the world, governments require a disclaimer or a warning label for books with LGBTQ+-related content. A famous example of this is in the book "Wonderland Is For Everyone," which features the marriage of two princes and a doe who wishes to become a buck. The book's purpose was to teach children that they must be respectful of people of all backgrounds; however, the Hungarian government asserted that the book conceals that it depicts behavior inconsistent with traditional gender roles. The government's order for a disclaimer on books with LGBTQ+ content goes against the freedom of expression and the prohibition of discrimination that we strive for worldwide. Furthermore, the warning labels interfere with the idea of promoting an open society because they violate the equality and acceptance of different backgrounds.  In order to provide equal expression in communities, we must employ good equality and diversity practices, ensuring that people are treated as equals and receive the respect they deserve. By adding warning labels to books such as, "Wonderland Is For Everyone," we see the government biases interfering with free speech. It perpetuates stereotypes and creates in built biases. This is similar to actions taken by authoritarian regimes in state-sponsored media.  By labeling books as mentioned, we create an idea that this part of the community should be treated differently, blatantly discriminatory. However, although these instances, such as with "Wonderland is for Everyone," where warning labels impede our journey to inclusion and open society, other warning labels are still necessary for the betterment of others and society. As previously mentioned, the typical warning message we see before movies that contain scenes about sexual abuse or rape is crucial for giving those who may feel uncomfortable watching those scenes or have experienced trauma related to them a chance to leave the theater. Therefore, although some may argue that placing a label is unnecessary and that life cannot be censored, these opposers must consider that warning labels help people make the informed viewing choices they are entitled to. Nevertheless, producers should still be cautious of using warnings that impede the equal expressions of citizens. In order to promote an open society, where freedom is valued while still being sensitive towards the mental states of viewers, we must provide people with the necessary warnings for them to choose if they feel comfortable watching certain content.