Restrictions :: Violent Video Games vs Violent Movies

ZDNet recently reported on how the US Supreme Court ruled on a California law enacted in 2005 (but never enforced) that banned selling violent video games to children. The court ruled in favor of video gaming concerns by a 7-2 margin. Here is an excerpt from the article:

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia called California’s law “seriously overinclusive because it abridges the First Amendment rights of young people whose parents…think violent video games are a harmless pastime.”

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote, “The First Amendment does not disable government from helping parents make such a choice here — a choice not to have their children buy extremely violent, interactive games.”

But more importantly, the court ruled in a precedent-setting decision that video games are entitled to the same protection as other forms of speech, such as books, plays and movies.

The Court also took a swipe at the argument that violent video games are harmful to children - a central argument of Senator Yee, the child psychologist turned politician who sponsored the law. In their ruling, the Supreme Court said studies showing studies linking violent video games and violent behavior in children “do not prove that such exposure causes minors to act aggressively.”

The ruling surfaces the issues of whether legislatures should involve themselves in such matters. Yet I wonder where the high court would come down on allowing children to frequent R-rated movies at theaters without their parents. I guess I could be misunderstanding the issues at hand but the two scenrios seem quite similar to me.
Of course, some theaters probably do allow older children in to "R-rated" movies in the same way that some stores allow kids to buy "M-rated" games.

What do you think? Should the same rules apply for video games and movies?