My take on trigger warning mandates flipped after one student talk

I used to think requiring trigger warnings for campus speakers was pure censorship, like babying adults who cant handle ideas. But last semester at Michigan State, I sat on a panel where a veteran shared his combat footage as part of a talk on drone policy, and a freshman in the front row had a full panic attack, had to be carried out. The organizer told me afterward, we arent banning speech, we are giving people a heads up so they can choose to engage, and that just hit me differently. If I know a movie has flashing lights for my buddy with epilepsy, why would I fight a text warning for trauma? Now I still oppose outright bans, but Ive flipped to supporting mandatory content notices for graphic material, like a label, not a lock. Does anyone else draw that line between warning and restriction, or do you see even notices as a slippery slope?