The Distinctive Baritone said: "It's been interesting reading all of these responses. A couple additional thoughts:
Posting written trigger warnings while using the actual term "trigger warning" is probably not a good idea at this point (this includes news articles, etc.). The term got abused and overused so much that it provokes a giant eye roll from even the most progressive and compassionate people. The term "content warning" is much better, as it means the same damn thing and won't provoke as much of a negative response.
As many posters have pointed out, posted warnings in theater lobbies about strobe lights, gun shots, haze, etc. have been standard for decades. What we are starting to see now is things like "Onstage depiction of rape/suicide." That's new.Although part of me thinks it makes sense to include these things, another part of me is like, "Uh...spoiler alert?" It's a fine line. Also, unless it's a totally new work, there is this amazing thing called the internet that people with sensitivities (or parental concerns) can use before seeing a play to find out about it. I don't see content warnings posted in movie theaters.”
Why is a warning about rape a spoiler, but a warning about a gunshot isn’t? I think you’re making a judgment call about the weight we should give to different “sensitivities,” and I’m not really sure that’s for us to decide. Especially because, even in an often-performed work, directors make all kinds of changes about how certain moments are portrayed, how graphically to show something, whether to include audience participation, etc.
And there are absolutely content warnings in movie theaters. They’re on the MPAA ratings, and the majority of commercial movie theaters refuse to screen movies that haven’t been rated. Those ratings have specific rules about what kinds of content get what ratings, and require the reasons for the rating to be documented and categorized. They’ll raise a movie’s rating for depictions of cigarette smoking. The MPAA is not screwing around.