The author of Grand Theft Childhood offers an intelligent, thoughtful rebuttal to the arguments (and the research data) being used by the State of California in the U.S. Supreme Court’s review of Schwarzenegger v. EMA.
Cheryl K. Olson (Sc.D., Asst. Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School) offers an update that takes on the evidence that California is using in the case, and the conclusions drawn by politicians in their arguments. She also says that the law may very well backfire should the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling be overturned.
Below is a taste:
"Earlier, I mentioned my concern that this law could do more harm to our children than good. Here’s a potential scenario. Although no provision is made for how games will make the do-not-sell list, most likely a committee will form to review and judge. Even if only games rated M by the ESRB are reviewed, that would require 100+ games per year to be scoured for objectionable content and assessed for artistic merit. Do you remember the ‘Hot Coffee’ scandal, where crude cartoon sex was unearthed (with the aid of downloaded computer code) in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas? Publicity about the need to protect children from this content alerted thousands of them to its existence," Olson writes.
You can read all of Olsen’s comments in this PDF provided by IndustryGamers.