The article ignores the real issue-- the impact of violent video games and movie content on children. There's no First Amendment right for kids to access violent content.
I disagree with your assertion. Some violent depictions can trivially be political speech, and "think of what the children will do" is simply not a compelling reason for the government to limit any political speech, especially when there is such a tenuous scientific link between viewing that content and long term health impact.
Consider The Bully Project film from 2 years ago; the MPAA rated it R because they consider it to be too violent, even though it is literally actual footage of bullying in schools. I find it difficult to accept that 15 and 16 year olds should be legally forbidden from watching something that has direct and important relevancy on their lives and could, from a reasonably objective view, actually improve the lives of bullied kids. Just because you are 16 shouldn't mean you have no rights.
Being able to speak freely is utterly pointless if no one else is allowed to listen. I am positing that it is immoral to legally limit the consumption of political speech by any person.
At no age is it currently illegal to own a violent game or R rated film. Film ratings are enforced voluntarily by private actors and not by the force of the law.
There is no reason for that to change for any medium without extremely strong reasons considering the free speech implications of giving the might of law to arbitrarily restrict content at their individual whim. It seems to me there are not even weak reasons currently, only absurd reactionary politics that always follow tragedy.
Yeah pretty much just because you aren't 21 you have few rights. Its strange - by legislating a number (legal age) we can disenfranchise, economically marginalize, and socially stigmatize whole groups of people. And no constitutional protection helps.
