Consequences can take all sorts of forms.
On another Christian forum the automatic censor is so strict it censors the Bible. If you look through the Old Testament there are all sorts of names that include an arguably naughty word tucked away inside them. Gilgashites, Elkoshites etc, all contain a slangy term for excrement within their letters. So the censor takes a perfectly innocent word and cuts parts of it out. It's ironic when a Christian forum censors Scripture, but that's apparently lost on the hosts.
A similar effect occurred many years ago when AOL decided to fight online pornography. One of its measures was to ban the word "breast". Not surprisingly poultry farmers complained, given they could no longer clearly advertise the prime cuts of poultry. Breast cancer support groups complained because they could no longer discuss their ailments without resorting to schoolyard-type slang terms for the affected body parts. And the porn industry was barely affected at all, because they use those exact same schoolyard-type slang terms and aren't too bothered about being anatomically correct.
More recently, around the time that COVID was first spreading, a video was circulating on Youtube. The video was of two people, claiming to be scientists of some type who had done seroprevalence studies that indicated the number of people who had been exposed to the then new virus was orders of magnitude more than the official figures would suggest. Their data, if accurate, suggested the virus was far more contagious or had been spreading for far longer than we were being told. Crucially it would also suggest the virus was far less deadly than we were being told. The video was constantly reposted and taken down. Subsequently it transpired that the virus was spreading across the East coast during the time officials were saying it was confined to the Pacific Northwest. How much damage that does to trust in official bodies, that require trust if they are to have any relevance at all, is impossible to quantify.
Censorship seems to be the sort of thing that's best done on an advisory level rather than an enforced level. It's one thing to have laws against something like child pornography where the subjects cannot be claimed to have offered any meaningful consent to the process, in which case censoring child pornography is about protecting the subjects rather than people who might want to watch it. Outside of that it's harder to strike a balance between the right of an adult to watch or listen to whatever they choose and rights of people who might prefer not to be watched. Although victims of an incident that occurred in public can arguably be claimed to not have rights of privacy due to things happening in public it's perhaps not unreasonable that they don't really want videos of their trauma endlessly shared. On another note where things like graphic sexual or violent content appear within films it's perhaps best to make it clear what a movie contains and allow adults to decide for themselves.
There are arguments relating to whether children can access inappropriate content and where responsibility lies for protecting children even if their guardians don't care to protect them, but there lies a minefield of potential situations that ultimately end up placing all sorts of needless and pointless restrictions on adults rather than enforcing rules elsewhere. If a child's guardians can't or won't prevent a child from seeing an R-rated movie, and the cinema won't refuse to sell a child a ticket to see the movie, at some point nothing further is gained by banning the movie outright.
