True, but there is a reason most human societies (excluding the West in the past 10 years) have had strong restrictions on the excesses of human behaviour. Just because the animal
can do something, doesn't mean it
should, precisely because society as a whole doesn't benefit when individuals do that.
In most societies, you still can't drink to excess and drive, nor advertise cigarettes, nor sell them to minors, nor do all manner of narcotics or have polygamous relationships willy-nilly. All these things are certainly what people would like to if possible, but social norms and laws put a lid on it. There is certainly screeching about some or all of those issues (like by some parties here on HN, Reddit and elsewhere), but by and large those restrictions are good for the functioning of a healthy society.
Media consumption, and in fact media production, was regulated, initially by technology (you couldn't broadcast widely before radio) and then by law (The Hays code in the US and its subsequent incarnations).
Cable defanged that, and the internet has destroyed it.
I'm not for censorship, but harmful media production and consumption should certainly be contained and punished if done with malicious intent. It's not easy though - we all agree that online recordings from certain Middle East groups are inflammatory and can radicalise innocent people into doing foolish things, but we can't see as a society that the same radicalisation has been happening in the Western press as well. The targets are just different.