And a fairly simple read of the link will indicate that what's being discussed is the enforcement of the ESRB ratings so kids get age-appropriate material. Not the banning of video games.

The ESRB isn't a governmental body, its more like an ISO/ASME. What's being discussed is to write laws that would be enforced by a governmental-body, not by an industry-body, with fines/penalties/criminal-indictments collected/issued/enforced by that government.

Once legislators are involved, the ban on games sales would happen at a country-legal level, albeit only for children. Did I get that wrong? Does anyone here know more about the ESRB that I'm missing?

Edit: As luck would have it, the US Supreme Court settled this particular argument a decade ago: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/08-1448.pdf

Why should the government decide what's age appropriate?

A fair question generally. But also one that's not very relevant to this thread. There are already age restrictions on many activities anyway and proponents on both sides.

The point was that the parent poster was talking about a full ban on games and posted an example which did not support the assertion.

> The point was that the parent poster was talking about a full ban on games and posted an example which did not support the assertion.

It was basically a full ban on video games for anyone under 18. IIRC even games like Super Mario Bros. and PAC-MAN could have been banned for violence under the proposed standard.

How would PAC-MAN be considered violent?

Ghosts are by definition, already dead.

I could see it being banned for encouraging bulimia, or the use of psychedelic pills, but violence is not so obvious.

The game cabinet (at least in the US) called them "monsters"

It seems like there is some ambiguous language use, based on the translation of Japanese terms but generally the canon seems to see them as Ghosts.

Presumably this would need to be decided in court, perhaps even the Supreme Court.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghosts_(Pac-Man)

I’m surprised frogger isn’t banned because it encourages suicide.

Your fairly simple search gives evidence for a significantly different claim.

The condescension is earned for saying something that isn't true.

did the G search reveal how those attempts to ban sales to children resulted in her losing the 2016 Presidential election?

I don't know about anyone else, but I read the sentence as a causal opinion, mentally adding an "I think" into his phrase. I wasn't sure if his "fact" had any truth, but "effect" is debatable in almost all cases. And that's a useful mnemonic to have, because it allows you to avoid the common trap of needing to "prove" someone wrong on the internet.

A*****17: Hillary Clinton also tried to make GTA illegal, which _I think_ is a large part of why Trump became president.

fair point