Automatic construction is not really a "side-effect" of reading a value in std::map, it's an explicit design choice. They want users to be able to write code like this:
If using operator[] on a key did not implicitly mean "create an entry for this key if it is not there," the above would not work. Rather, you would have to write the above as:
The reason being that std::map is purely a library, not a part of the language. It does not "know" that operator[] is actually being used as a part of an assignment.
Strictly speaking, it's a side effect, because it mutates an existing object. It's also a surprising and bug-prone side effect (as mentioned upthread; also, Darius Bacon found a bug or two in Norvig's spell-corrector due to the corresponding behavior of defaultdict in Python) and an avoidable side effect, although it's not avoidable in C++. In Ruby, Python, Smalltalk, Common Lisp, Lua, and many other languages, you can make this (or its weird-syntax equivalent) work:
dict["one"] = 1;
without causing this to add "one" to the dictionary:
if (dict["one"]) { /* ... */ }
even for a "dict" that is purely a library, not a part of the language.
The underlying problem is that C++ calls the same operator[] in both lvalue and rvalue contexts. Which is pretty odd, really, when you think about it; it certainly doesn't generate the same code for indexing into native arrays in lvalue and rvalue contexts. All the other languages distinguish between the lvalue and rvalue contexts. Ruby calls [] or []=, Python calls __getitem__ or __setitem__; Smalltalk has #at: and #at:put:; Common Lisp doesn't have separate names for the two things, but one of them is defined with (defun foo (dict key) ...) and the other is defined with (defun (setf foo) (dict key) ...); in Lua, these are the metamethods __index and __newindex.
So it's sort of true that it's not std::map's fault, but C++'s. But not really. Stroustrup fixed several things about the way templates worked to make STL work better; he should have fixed this one too.