To me there is a big difference between outright censorship and simply limiting access by minors to something that is generally considered inappropriate for them. As far as I know no one in this case was talking about limiting the access to such games by adults or in any way censoring the games themselves. I'm almost always a fan of smaller government and less intrusion and I truly believe a huge part of our societal struggles are rooted in the current state of parenting. But this is a non-intrusive way in which the government can give parents a little support. It would not and can not do the parent's job for them. (Ha, parenting should be so easy!) It is not coming into your home nanny state style to take something bad away. It is limiting minor's access to something potentially harmful. That's not just semantics, there is a difference. If you feel the games are appropriate for your kids head on out to Wal-Mart and buy a couple. No one is stopping you.
I do not have a problem with my kids having limited access to tobacco or alcohol before they are a little more mature. Can they get either one? Of course, but in denying DIRECT access the law provides an opportunity for me to head them off at the pass. I also like the movie rating system. It doesn't necessarily stop them from seeing movies rated for more mature audiences, but it at least gives me a tool to use to help them determine what options are appropriate. Limiting their access to violent games only slows them down a notch, but that gives me a chance to get with them and take a closer look at the games they pick out. Any parent knows kids will not set limits themselves. We also know that no matter how hard we try we can not be vigilant 100% of the time. A tool like this is helpful.