jamyskis: Speaking as a European, I realise that our age classification/censorship authorities do go overboard a lot of the time (especially the USK), but at the same time, most Europeans do recognise the need to enforce some kind of age restriction system. I've done my part-time work in Gamestop and I know how many parents try to buy games for their kids with their kids present - a lot of them don't realise that the age restrictions are binding, not a recommendation, and most of them had no idea of the type of stuff that's in these games.
There are plenty of games that are just not suitable for kids and even the ESRB recognises this. It would be an ideal world where all parents raise their kids properly and allow them to play games that are suitable for them, but unfortunately a lot of them just buy their kids these games to keep them quiet and absolve themselves of all responsibility for raising them.
Of course, common sense is demanded and I don't strictly adhere to the age ratings - my girlfriend's goddaughter was 4 when she came to see us last and she enjoys playing Ridge Racer - which is rated 6 but is harmless. What I won't do is subject her - or my children in the future - to something like Counterstrike or CoD. I was horrified a couple of years ago when my sister bought my then 10-year-old nephew Black Ops for his Xbox.
I personally find the uproar on Gamespot hilarious every time someone tries to restrict the sale of M-rated and AO-rated games to adults by means of legislation - it's a typical sign of the average demographic there. Why should people over 18 care?
I'm pretty sure that I'm not alone in finding it disturbing when 11-year-olds play Mortal Kombat, revelling in the numerous dismemberments and decapitations, and are spewing out all kinds of nasty shit when they play Call of Duty online...
Except they aren't here.
The Supreme Court recently recognized that video games are Protected Speech under the First Amendment, by a 7-2 vote. For the government to set up a ratings board and/or require these "warnings", it would basically amount to Compelled Speech for the publishers/developers, which tends to be a big no-no here. It is even more so of a no-no when they try to single out a single medium of Protected Speech, namely video games, while not having other mediums that display the same, if not worse, ideas/themes have that same warning.
The ESRB ratings here are not binding, but rather an industry measure designed to preclude the government getting into it. Much like how the MPAA ratings are not legally binding or that the Comics Code of America is not binding. Publishers/developers don't have to submit their games, but the console makers won't allow unrated games on their platforms (PC games don't have that same burden). There is also the fact that the ESRB ratings are followed by stores and retailers around 80%+ of the time, compared to around 50% for unrated movies (can't remember the actual numbers from the FTC report).