Again, you raise some legitimate questions that are certainly worth discussing, but I think the assertion that government should be involved in regulating access to video games for children is the minor point of the post. The main point is the double standard she mentions and what effect different regulations have on parental rights. If the main point of her short post had been to argue that video games lead to increased violence and should be regulated, then perhaps the author would have looked into supplying empirical data to support her claim. 

An unenforceable law only serves a purpose when it allows you to get your day in court. State bills on immigration, the TSA, and federal land policy accomplish this when no other recourse is left. In this case, the unenforceable law might send a message, but we have to ask if it is a message worth sending. If the problem is not widespread (again, get some hard data), the cost of action far outweighs the cost of inaction.

The report you cite is tenuous evidence at best. The author of the article admits that more research needs to be done, and no data is cited regarding the effects on minors at all. It’s also not specific as to how the increased aggression manifested itself. Did it mean greater competitiveness, or an increased inclination towards violence? The former is good, the latter is bad, but the article makes no distinction. It’s no wonder he called for more studies.

I’m not arguing whether or not such laws are consistent with the Constitution (I believe they are so long as they are sufficiently limited in geographic scope), but I am arguing that this entire post was based on a set of assumptions with too little data. When decisions are made before facts are in, they tend to be little more than shots in the dark, and that often ends very, very badly.

You raise a lot of interesting questions, but, as you probably know, blog posts tend to be brief and cannot address every question or criticism that may arise.

As you noted, enforcement with online/digital gaming can be difficult, but just because something is difficult doesn’t mean it is impossible or shouldn’t be done. Sometimes we even have laws that are unenforceable simply to communicate a standard of what is right and wrong.

Regarding data, here’s a short review of the research (meta-analysis of 380 studies) from a cognitive scientist at the University of Texas on the link between violent video games and aggression :  http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ulterior-motives/201003/the-broad-view-research-video-games-and-aggression

I think the most important point of this post is that Shurtleff argues that CA was taking over the role of the parent with this law when it actually empowers the parent by requiring retailers to go through them. Paul makes a good argument about this here: http://www.sutherlandinstitute.org/article_detail.php?id=3088&type=Family%20and%20Society&newsletter=1

In contrast, these laws regarding cribs, car seats, etc. diminish parental rights. 

There’s also the gross impracticality of enforcing such laws. Video games (and, for that matter, most media) are shifting to being distributed digitally. Do you honestly believe that you can somehow force these standards to be applied to a distributor that exists solely online, likely with operations in a different state or time zone? The very idea is absurd and divorced from reality.

Then we come to the matter of defining the “community” part of “community standards”. By definition, a community has to have some kind of focused commonality, or it does not exist. It is impractical to try to define an entire state as a community, and just as difficult to do so with a moderately sized city. The diversity of opinions and backgrounds all but ensures conflict that drives a “community” apart rather than unite them in purpose.

You also cite exactly zero data as to the consumption of these video games, a classic fear-mongering tactic. Is the percentage of minors affected relatively large or relatively small? What part of these games’ audience is minors? Is that the intended audience? Resorting to such low-information arguments only muddies the waters and provides no logical basis on which to build your conclusions.

In short, you’re tilting at windmills in a way that should be downright embarrassing to an organization that otherwise does good work. You should be ashamed.