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.
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
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.
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.
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.