This arguably infringes mildly on freedom of speech, but only very mildly and it's not like we are banning content. And the Council is unanimous so..
X tack50
The alternative for trigger / content warnings (which are in other countries often already in place) is banning said content, and i don't think most would agree on that. Content warnings or disclaimers is a good alternative. If you want to see the content, no-one is going to stop you, but at least you were informed about it. And nothing would change for news broadcasts which was important to include, otherwise the entire broadcast would be disrupted by trigger warnings almost continuously, but you can expect that when watching a news broadcast. The act is more about providing the warning where one would not expect it to see such coverage. The context matters here.
