I did mention that is it not legal to ban games in the US - according to the US Constitution.  I consider this document important, as a military member I swore to uphold this document from enemies - both foreign and domestic. 

However, as I mentioned, there is something more important involved - what's right and what's wrong.  It is wrong to ban games.  A game is unable to physically hurt a person or the environment.  A game can not stab you.  A game cannot push you.  A game cannot kill an animal or pollute a river.  Since a game can do no harm and you should be allowed to live your life as long as you don't initiate force, all games should always be legal.  I understand the reasoning behind preventing the selling of certain games to children (while I don't necessarily agree with it); but, there is no justifiable reason to ban adults from buying and playing games.

You even admit the game hurts no one.  Of course you are right - games cannot hurt people.  While there is a chance someone may be more likely to rape someone else because they played Grand Theft  Auto 3 (a game where people are able to practice rape), that doesn't mean the game should be banned.  The game doesn't cause any damage.  The damage is caused by the person doing the damage.  The damage should be outlawed and the person doing the damage should be punished.  There is no reason to punish businessman and consenting adults for the crimes of others.

I understand that you come from Europe where there is almost no thought of self ownership or the principle of non-aggressive so what I'm saying may be so foreign to you that you are unable to wrap your head around.

Where I live next year will be the 1st year of kindergarten in the government school of a near-by town.  We don't have seat belt laws for adults.  Car insurance isn't required.  People walk around with military rifles (and these folks are not in the military or government workers) which is perfectly legal - even in the legislative chamber.  Heck, the legislatures only make $100 a year so all 424 of them are essentially working for less than 1 cent per hour.

You do have a responsibility to society.  That responsibility starts and ends with your responsibility not to agress against others.  As long as you try super hard not to do that, you have fullfilled your responsibility. 

You might want to watch this short animation - The Philosophy
of Liberty

http://www.isil.org/resources/philosophy-of-liberty-index.html

(just click on the English version)

Though i do quite like the argument that this has evolved into (excellent insight into philosophy on some very sticky issues), the original point of the post has long since become moot. Game depicts child having sex, acknowledging that said child is under 18 years of age. Thereby, game is banned by default in America, regardless of content.

It's an interesting thing.  I haven't played the game in question & have no plans on it, but from our discussion here I've gathered that the game says that the women are all of age.

Now, let's say that they're lying--the women in this game are all fictional representations of underage women.  Still, the legal situation is slightly murky.  Several years back the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that fictional child pornography was protected by the 1st Amendment--that there was no compelling governmental interest in outlawing such material (such as protecting real-life children).

After that, the U.S. Congress under Bush (II) passed legislation that tries to make this kind of thing illegal.  To my knowledge, only one person has been convicted since on such "fictional child pornography," and while that case has gone to an appellate court and the conviction was upheld there, it hasn't gone all the way up to the Supreme Court (whether it ever will or not).

So, yeah.  If my understandings are correct, by law a game like this would be illegal (assuming we grant that the fictional characters are underage, despite the game's explicit denial of such)... except that a rather recent Supreme Court ruling holds that kind of law unconstitutional, and some court might well overturn the relevant law in the future on that precedent.