Warning: This column contains material some of you may disagree with

Issued ahead of films, TV and radio shows, and theatre performances, they list potential moments where audience members might feel challenged, shocked, or upset – the very reasons why most discerning people choose to consume drama.

There are some instances when it may be appropriate for producers and broadcasters to offer guidance, for example, when graphic sexual or physical abuse is depicted, or if the work deals with emotionally hard-to-process issues such as suicide, infanticide, or childhood neglect.

Read more by Carlos Aba

• Shameful: our libel laws are a plaything for the rich
• The companies that drive us mad: do we only have ourselves to blame?
• Don't be blinded by Adolescence: social media can be a force for good

In those circumstances it may be legitimate to issue a content warning in advance or, more pertinently, to direct viewers or listeners to support services afterwards.

However, trigger warnings, which began to replace simple age ratings around a decade ago, are now so widespread as to be near ubiquitous, despite viewers often finding them patronising and irksome, particularly when they include plot spoilers.

This year’s Edinburgh festivals have introduced extensive warnings for performances, addressing a range of diverse “concerns” from "climate anxiety" and "transmisogyny", to “colonisation” and "kink experiences".

Viewers of Reality Is Not Enough, a portrait of author Irvine Welsh at the film festival, are warned it contains “swearing and substance abuse”, while those attending the film I would never f*** you, are told to expect “homophobia and heterosexism, transphobia and transmisogyny”.

Young mothers, a film by Belgian filmmakers Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne features “pregnancy and childbirth”, according to its trigger warning, while the play Faustus in Africa, at the international festival, contains images of violence such as “a needle extracting blood”.

A “radical retelling” of Shakespeare’s As you like it, deals with “themes of wars, colonisation, sexual violence, mass murder, suicide and strong language”.

And audiences at The Dan Daw Show, a theatrical dance performance, are warned they will be subjected to “depictions of kink experiences (including suffocation, humiliation and dominance)” and “descriptions of feeling othered”.

I have no doubt there are few more traumatic experiences than to be othered via the medium of dance, but I do feel we are close to crossing a line here.

Surely, the purpose of good theatre and film is to challenge the expectations of audiences and that can include shocking and even offending their sensibilities.

The pervasive use of trigger warnings not only infantilises audiences – anyone turning up to a film about Irvine Welsh and not expecting it to include swearing and references to drugtaking clearly didn’t get the memo – it normalises the growth of a dangerously paternalistic culture in our society.

We have already seen examples of how, in some universities, the desire not to offend has trumped free speech. In seeking to create “safe spaces” for students and academics, some institutions have felt justified in “deplatforming” speakers and disciplining or even sacking lecturers with whose views they disagree.

A survey of 500 UK businesses published earlier this year revealed that nearly 40% of employers with a social media policy routinely monitor staff posts, with a quarter having disciplined or fired employees for online content. Around 70% acted due to fears of reputational damage, while 60% cited potential offence to colleagues.

A welcome Court of Appeal ruling in Higgs v Farmor’s School last February said that disciplining employees for expressing protected beliefs, like gender-critical views, could constitute unlawful discrimination. The court said employers cannot suppress beliefs merely because others find them offensive.

However, the waters risk being muddied by the Employment Rights Bill currently going through Parliament, which includes new provisions to protect employees from being offended at work.

While the aims of the bill are well intentioned – it will also end the abomination of “one-sided flexibility” in zero hours contracts and introduce day one rights for paternity leave and protection from unfair dismissal – it will reinstate and expand employer liability for “third-party harassment”.

This means employers will be held accountable if they fail to take “all reasonable steps” to prevent harassment by clients or customers, including instances when they have felt offended.

Consider the following scenario. You are in the pub with friends, winding down with few drinks, when someone at your table tells an off-colour joke or makes and ill-considered comment, which the bartender overhears.

Feeling offended, the staff member takes their employer to an employment tribunal and wins. The next time you visit the pub you are refused service and told that you and your friends are barred.

The walls of the pub have printed notices, warning customers that their conversation will be monitored and, if anything they say is deemed to be offensive or abusive by staff, they will be barred.

Could pub conversations become a legal minefield? (Image: PA)

To ensure clarity, the bill mandates the introduction of regulations defining what constitutes "all reasonable steps". These guidelines are designed to “help” employers understand their obligations, such as conducting risk assessments, implementing anti-harassment policies, and establishing effective complaint-handling procedures.

This aims to create a safer and more inclusive work environment by setting clearer expectations for employers, we are assured.

It also means that, as a customer who has been overheard airing “gender- critical views” or discussing sensitive issues such as the war in Gaza, you could inadvertently and unknowingly be included in the bar’s risk assessment procedures.

Serviceable laws already exist to protect people from racist, homophobic, and misogynistic speech without the need for this kind of totalitarian-lite invasion of people’s space.

Similarly, when we visit the theatre or the cinema, we deserve to be treated as adults, with the judgement and intelligence to decide for ourselves what we consider to be offensive.

Carlos Alba is a journalist, author, and PR consultant at Carlos Alba Media. His latest novel, There’s a Problem with Dad, explores the issue of undiagnosed autism among older people.