Not sure if the person who posted that was taking the quote out of context.
California's law promotes parental authority to restrict unsupervised minors’ ability to consume a narrow category of material in order to protect minors’ physical and psychological welfare, as well as their ethical and moral development. California has a vital interest in supporting parental supervision over the amount of offensively violent material minors consume. The Act ensures that parents – who have primary responsibility for the well-being of minors – have an opportunity to involve themselves in deciding what level of video game violence is suitable for a particular minor.”
It is well-recognized that the societal values served by the freedom to consume expressive material do not justify recognizing a constitutional right for minors of the same magnitude as that for adults – and this should be true whether the expressive material is sexually explicit or offensively violent. Instead, while minors certainly enjoy the protection of the First Amendment, it is a more restricted right than that assured to adults, who may judge for themselves what level of sexually-explicit or violent material they should consume.
The First Amendment has never been understood as guaranteeing minors unfettered access to offensively violent material. Such material shares the same characteristics as other forms of unprotected speech, especially sexually explicit material. Throughout history, many states have enacted laws that regulate the sale of both sexual and violent material to minors. Such restrictions reflect society’s understanding that violent material can be just as harmful to the well-being of minors as sexually explicit material. This is further reflected in the fact that violence can strip constitutional protection from otherwise protected material. Sexually explicit material that would be otherwise protected for distribution to adults can be considered obscene given the violent nature of its depiction. No rational justification exists for treating violent material so vastly different than sexual material under the First Amendment when reviewing restrictions on distribution to minors.
It would seem to me that the person who posted that ignored every sentence that came before it (especially the 2nd paragraph). Obviously though I could be missing something.