An article penned by the Editorial Board of the Oregonian calls violent games “poison to the teen mind,” and cites “a fragmented but growing body of research,” to back its hopes that the California legislation will at least “find footing” in order to “set a promising example.”
The opinion piece states that Schwarzenegger vs EMA is not exclusively about free speech, since the law does not seek an outright ban on violent games.
The California law, according to the Oregonian, would “simply prevent the neighborhood video store clerk from deciding to sell ‘Postal 2’ to a 14-year-old.”
The editorial continued, stating:
Barring the sale or rental of excessively violent video games to minors is prudent and sane. Doing so also preserves the rights of video-makers to create anything they want and, with a suitable rating level assigned, sell it accordingly.
Even the author of the editorial sees some problems however, calling the California law "smart but failed," adding:
Deciding which video games need a legal adult at the wheel would be difficult. Is a bloodless shooting victim the same as one made to ask for mercy before getting doused in gasoline and set afire? Justice Scalia was right in asking, "What's a deviant violent video game? As opposed to what? A normal violent video game?"
The editorialist on the outcome that they would like to see:
... we hope the high court will see this from a distance as well as in the fine parsings of precedent and find within its reach the ability to do something simple and consistent with the norms of society: help parents protect their kids from risk.