...So? You take this risk anytime you use closed source software (or anytime you don't view the source of an open source software program, and your compiler, etc.)
How do you know your web browser right now doesn't have malware built in? After all, have you read the entire source for Firefox/Chrome/Safari/Internet Explorer/Opera for the exact version you are using?
Of course there are easter eggs stored in ROMs. You only need to look as far as to video games to find long rants hidden in there (just see http://www.bretz.ca/dave/tetrisrant.htm for an example)
The nice thing about a corporation is, you don't have to give them money. No corporation has ever threatened to kidnap me and throw me in a cage if I didn't buy their latest product. No corporation has ever held a gun to my head and made me pay them. On the other hand, try not paying your taxes...
If ISPs do start throttling and the markets are still free, a market opens up, when a market opens up one of two things happens:
A) A new company comes in existence to capitalize on that market
or
B) Existing companies tweak their offerings to capitalize on that new market.
A company has to keep producing a good product or a service or else it goes bankrupt. Look at Blockbuster, a few short years ago it was a thriving business but it didn't give its customers what it wanted, its movies were too expensive, they didn't offer DVDs by mail or online, they had too few locations and within a few years Redbox and Netflix have taken over and Blockbuster had to declare bankruptcy.
As long as there is a demand for non-throttled, no restrictions internet, there will still be non-throttled, no restrictions internet so long as the government doesn't screw it up.
And there are many, many, many, more. All regulation turns into bad regulation, its the nature of government to want more and more power, the only way to stop it is to have clearly defined boundaries like what the framers of the US constitution wished, but has been clearly ignored like in the Wickard v. Filburn case referenced earlier.
There is no way to know whether a law would be "good" or "bad" until after it is signed into law and (mis)-interpreted by the regulators and the court system. A law that sounds good on paper does not always translate to a good law in practice. Since there is no way to know whether a law would be "good" or "bad" the best course of action is to oppose them unless they have clearly defined boundaries, in the case of Net Neutrality I can see it opening up a whole other can of worms where the government decides what can and can't be on the internet, much like how Europe is going where a pro-regulation environment has allowed for entire sites to be blocked. Even the most "evil" ISP in America doesn't block The Pirate Bay but in Europe just about every ISP does.
Have you ever wrote a letter to your congressman? Back when the DMCA was first being drafted I wrote a couple of letters to my representative and senators urging them to oppose it and warning them of the dangers it would have to the fledgling internet. I got replies from both of them assuring me that they fully supported the DMCA and thanks for the letter...
There is a bigger picture, there is a broader history, the entirety of history simply screams that government regulations don't work. The history of the US Supreme Court is overflowing with misinterpreted laws, with laws that the people and Congress believed would be used for one thing but the court system and the regulatory bodies twisted it into another.
And you obviously have a much higher view of humanity than I have, do you really think that more people is the answer? Do you really believe that this nation would be any better if everyone showed up to vote? Do you really believe that freedom would win?
The US legal system may have been designed to prevent the slippery slope but it has failed. It has failed on numerous occasions.
Regulatory overreach will occur as long as you have regulations, plain and simple. The only way to prevent regulatory overreach is to reduce and eliminate many regulations and let the free market work as intended.
I believe some regulations and laws are very sensible.
Ok, which ones? Other than the basic ones such as restrictions on force and fraud, meaning laws against murder, theft, (real) rape, etc. Which regulations do you think have been beneficial and haven't been twisted?
Oppose those, then. As I said, whether or not we have things such as net neutrality, the government will always try to take away our rights. Regulations aren't what creates these laws; the politicians do, and they're elected by the people. Eternal vigilance is what is needed. Stop opposing unrelated things out of fear that it's some sort of slippery slope.
Ok, but show me which ones won't be misinterpreted. Honestly if I was one of the ones approving the brand new US constitution I don't think that I could have ever dreamed that those words would have been taken in such a way to prevent the personal consumption of wheat by the federal government. I mean, would you have?
There is every evidence for a slippery slope and you haven't shown any evidence to show it doesn't exist. I gave a clear and well known example of how the slippery slope does in fact exist and you've done nothing to counter that basic argument. There are dozens of other cases like that where the Supreme Court has so grossly misinterpreted such a basic law or right. Just look at what the police are able to legally do today in regards to searches and seizures!
If you think that mindlessly opposing all regulation will magically stop the government from being evil, you're in for a grand awakening.
Regulations and laws are how the government is able to act in an evil manner. They are like fangs to a rattlesnake, if you take out the fangs and the venom sacs of a rattlesnake it can't do a whole lot to hurt you, sure, it can be annoying, mean, and generally unpleasant to be around, but its a lot better than a rattlesnake with fangs and poison. A government with broad powers of regulation and broad abilities to make laws are like that rattlesnake with its teeth and poison, reducing the power it has to regulate and make laws slowly takes away those tools of evil making it a whole lot more safer.
So the answer to something caused by government (most cable monopolies are subsidized either in the past or in the present, few are free market "monopolies") is more government? Is the answer to cyanide poising more cyanide?
There is a reason that a good chunk of ISPs don't throttle connections it is because it makes more sense for them financially not to.
If/When net neutrality is in place the next step will be to have mandatory monitoring and blocking of "offending" sites. Just look at Europe for example where government regulation of the internet is commonplace, a lot of ISPs have blocked The Pirate Bay due to court orders, on the other hand, I don't know of a single major US ISP that has blocked The Pirate Bay.
Ok, so how much cyanide do you want? All regulations in some way or another end up being draconian. Even the most innocent, common sense regulations end up being twisted by politicians, the regulatory committees or the courts to mean something completely different. Tell me, which regulations aren't draconian? Which ones won't be misinterpreted? The only sane course of action is to oppose all regulations except for the most basic restrictions against fraud and force and let the free market do its job. A limited government or limited regulation is an oxymoron, a government will never be limited, regulation will never be limited it will either end up as too much regulation or as fraud (the masses believe it to be run as according to the regulations but it isn't).
Consider the case of Wickard V. Filburn (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn ) which took the phrase "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes" in the US constitution and made it somehow apply to a guy growing wheat for his own consumption on his own farm. If something that basic can be so misinterpreted, what can't be misinterpreted?
Well of course, Romney is a career politician, his entire job description is to be all over the place to gain votes. The only candidates who stick to a consistent position are considered "unelectable".
And I doubt you can really say what the Republican party really stands on any one issue, anymore its made out of 3 major camps, you've got the "neo" conservatives which believe in having a strong offensive military and government control over the economy, you've got the tea partiers who want the big military but don't want the government control over the economy and then you've got the moderate libertarians who want a smaller military and less/no government control over the economy. You get guys ranging from John McCain and Dick Chaney all the way to people like Ron Paul and Gary Johnson who have put themselves at one time or the other under the Republican party banner.
Except for the fact that small regulations always allowed the government to gain more and more control. Just look at what a simple clause allowing the federal government to regulate interstate commerce has turned into, its gone from making sure that states get along to allowing the micromanagement of the tiniest thing because it might possibly have a very tiny chance of being traded interstate.
Copyright is silly, its not property, it shouldn't be treated as such.
If you are really good at creating something, you will make money without resorting to imaginary property. Be it live performances, lectures, donations, guidance, etc. Will the death of imaginary property mean the end of a lot of mediocrity? Yes. Will it be the death of truly great artists and authors? Of course not.
A) Preserve property rights
B) Protect the internet
C) Keep the internet free
What I propose is that net neutrality be built into the requirements for ISPs to obtain federal/state/local funding. Don't want to implement net neutrality? Don't take taxpayer dollars. Want to take taxpayer dollars for your ISP? Implement net neutrality.
That's the odd thing about Nintendo though, they generally end up defining the generation and while 95% of the games on the system are utter crap the other 5% is the stuff that defines the generation. The Wii has had a lot of gems, Super Mario Galaxy (2), Super Smash Bros. Brawl, Skyward Sword, and Xenoblade. The games you can't get on the PS3 or 360.
While I have to say I use my Wii a lot less than I do my 360 (or 3DS for that matter) easily 4 out of the 5 best games I've played this generation have been Nintendo exclusives (Brawl, Super Mario Galaxy 2, Xenoblade, Super Mario 3D Land) the lone non-Nintendo game would have to be Tales of Vesperia.
Switch to the better Linux distribution. It is unlikely (unless you are writing low level programs) that you will ever have a problem with changes made in the Linux kernel. The biggest problems with Linux distribution are all the UI changes (such as GNOME 3 and Unity). For example, I switched from Vista on my machines to Ubuntu because it took me about 30 minutes to configure a generic Ubuntu install to one that fit my preferences, it took me a good 3-4 hours to configure a Vista install to one that fit my preferences because they system would fight me all the way. A couple of years ago, Ubuntu made a bunch of stupid changes which meant that configuring a new install would take me a good 3-4 hours to configure, configuring a Debian install took only about 30 minutes. Eventually my Debian install became out of date and it made more sense to go to Linux Mint rather than spend 3-4 hours configuring and updating Debian, etc.
The problem is, I haven't ever found an Android or iOS game that held my interest for longer than a few seconds. Sure, they might be cheaper but the games are either:
A) Not fun
B) Not long enough
C) Don't work without physical buttons (I'm looking at you Final Fantasy for iOS)
D) Too expensive for the amount of fun. I don't want to spend $10 for an hour long game.
Other than emulators, I haven't found a decent game for my Android phone and the emulator kinda kills the portability because in order to actually play them you have to have a bluetooth controller...
Except for the fact that if they'd make it be a general purpose computer, it would suck.
Have you ever actually -used- the web browser on the 3DS? Its slow, its clunky and basically useless.
Sure, it might be fun for us nerds to run Linux on the 3DS, but anytime you try to make a game console be more than a game console, it doesn't really work out.
The funny thing is, Nintendo is probably the healthiest game/hardware maker in the business. Unlike Sony/Microsoft, Nintendo usually makes a profit on their hardware rather than selling it at a loss in hope of recouping their loss via games. The Wii has outsold the 360 and the PS3, the 3DS has outsold the PS Vita by leaps and bounds.
Yep. After Windows 7 I actually thought Microsoft was getting better, after all IE is now actually usable, Windows Phone 7 is actually pretty neat (not good enough to replace my Android phone, but not the buggy crap which was the old Windows Mobile). But Windows 8 just seems to be stupid decision after stupid decision. I don't think I've really seen a decent idea implemented in Windows 8 so far...
Exactly. If you can modify the hosts file which should only be able to be edited by an administrator the system has been fully and utterly compromised.
Any time a system decides to make things more complicated for the end user with no benefits means its time to jump ship to a different system. Just because you -can- perhaps get a work around doesn't make this decision any better. I -could- spend a few hours getting Ubuntu to behave like I want it to, but it makes more sense for me to just jump ship to a better distribution where configuring it to fit my needs takes a couple of minutes of minor changes rather than wasting an entire afternoon to make it behave like it did before the updates ruined it.
Given how nearly everything is web based, cross platform, able to be emulated via virtualization or WINE or has a Linux/OS X alternative I don't see why anyone would stick with Windows 8 unless you were a gamer.
Moving is the only sane option right now. Voting doesn't work, sure, you can vote for the lesser evil and get slightly less tyranny or you can vote a protest vote for the Libertarian/Green/Constitution party, but in most elections they have no chance of winning. People in the US don't want freedom they want "security", security to do what no one seems to know and because most Americans haven't stepped outside their country and realized that many, many, countries work just fine without having an oppressive 1984-esque police state and are as safe, if not safer than the US.
Exploring your options outside of the US is the only sane thing you can do right now.
And go to anywhere in the US that isn't designated as a "Free Speech Zone" and see how much freedom you have. See, the funny thing is with most Americans is they think that just because something is written on paper that you can or can't do something that is the judge of how free something is. In most other countries how free you are is measured by what you are really capable of doing, for example, I'm sure that there's no law in the UK about having to smile all the time. I'm pretty sure there's also no common law precedent forcing someone to smile but that didn't stop the British police for arresting a middle aged man suffering from Parkinson's disease for "acting suspicious" for not smiling (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/aug/08/olympics-spectator-parkinsons-arrest-smiling ).
Just because something is technically legal or technically illegal it doesn't really much matter. What matters is can you do it without being arrested, shot, beaten, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Um, they did.
http://www.lostlevels.org/200312/200312-ffan2.shtml
With enough searching I believe you should be able to find screenshots and such from the game.
http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17wkpxma1zym7jpg/original.jpg is an image of part of an ad that ran before its release.
...So? You take this risk anytime you use closed source software (or anytime you don't view the source of an open source software program, and your compiler, etc.)
How do you know your web browser right now doesn't have malware built in? After all, have you read the entire source for Firefox/Chrome/Safari/Internet Explorer/Opera for the exact version you are using?
Of course there are easter eggs stored in ROMs. You only need to look as far as to video games to find long rants hidden in there (just see http://www.bretz.ca/dave/tetrisrant.htm for an example)
So, why read a cartoon version when you can just watch the news? I really don't see what this is trying to accomplish that video won't.
The nice thing about a corporation is, you don't have to give them money. No corporation has ever threatened to kidnap me and throw me in a cage if I didn't buy their latest product. No corporation has ever held a gun to my head and made me pay them. On the other hand, try not paying your taxes...
If ISPs do start throttling and the markets are still free, a market opens up, when a market opens up one of two things happens:
A) A new company comes in existence to capitalize on that market
or
B) Existing companies tweak their offerings to capitalize on that new market.
A company has to keep producing a good product or a service or else it goes bankrupt. Look at Blockbuster, a few short years ago it was a thriving business but it didn't give its customers what it wanted, its movies were too expensive, they didn't offer DVDs by mail or online, they had too few locations and within a few years Redbox and Netflix have taken over and Blockbuster had to declare bankruptcy.
As long as there is a demand for non-throttled, no restrictions internet, there will still be non-throttled, no restrictions internet so long as the government doesn't screw it up.
Did you not read this case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
Or how about this one? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carroll_v._United_States
Or this one? http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/us/justices-approve-strip-searches-for-any-offense.html?pagewanted=all
Or what about the FDA raiding "raw milk" sellers? http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2011/08/the-latest-raw-milk-raid-an-attack-on-food-freedom/243635/ Do you really think that those approving the bill creating the FDA would ever think of taxpayer money being wasted on these non-crimes?
And there are many, many, many, more. All regulation turns into bad regulation, its the nature of government to want more and more power, the only way to stop it is to have clearly defined boundaries like what the framers of the US constitution wished, but has been clearly ignored like in the Wickard v. Filburn case referenced earlier.
There is no way to know whether a law would be "good" or "bad" until after it is signed into law and (mis)-interpreted by the regulators and the court system. A law that sounds good on paper does not always translate to a good law in practice. Since there is no way to know whether a law would be "good" or "bad" the best course of action is to oppose them unless they have clearly defined boundaries, in the case of Net Neutrality I can see it opening up a whole other can of worms where the government decides what can and can't be on the internet, much like how Europe is going where a pro-regulation environment has allowed for entire sites to be blocked. Even the most "evil" ISP in America doesn't block The Pirate Bay but in Europe just about every ISP does.
Have you ever wrote a letter to your congressman? Back when the DMCA was first being drafted I wrote a couple of letters to my representative and senators urging them to oppose it and warning them of the dangers it would have to the fledgling internet. I got replies from both of them assuring me that they fully supported the DMCA and thanks for the letter...
There is a bigger picture, there is a broader history, the entirety of history simply screams that government regulations don't work. The history of the US Supreme Court is overflowing with misinterpreted laws, with laws that the people and Congress believed would be used for one thing but the court system and the regulatory bodies twisted it into another.
And you obviously have a much higher view of humanity than I have, do you really think that more people is the answer? Do you really believe that this nation would be any better if everyone showed up to vote? Do you really believe that freedom would win?
The US legal system may have been designed to prevent the slippery slope but it has failed. It has failed on numerous occasions.
Regulatory overreach will occur as long as you have regulations, plain and simple. The only way to prevent regulatory overreach is to reduce and eliminate many regulations and let the free market work as intended.
I believe some regulations and laws are very sensible.
Ok, which ones? Other than the basic ones such as restrictions on force and fraud, meaning laws against murder, theft, (real) rape, etc. Which regulations do you think have been beneficial and haven't been twisted?
Oppose those, then. As I said, whether or not we have things such as net neutrality, the government will always try to take away our rights. Regulations aren't what creates these laws; the politicians do, and they're elected by the people. Eternal vigilance is what is needed. Stop opposing unrelated things out of fear that it's some sort of slippery slope.
Ok, but show me which ones won't be misinterpreted. Honestly if I was one of the ones approving the brand new US constitution I don't think that I could have ever dreamed that those words would have been taken in such a way to prevent the personal consumption of wheat by the federal government. I mean, would you have?
There is every evidence for a slippery slope and you haven't shown any evidence to show it doesn't exist. I gave a clear and well known example of how the slippery slope does in fact exist and you've done nothing to counter that basic argument. There are dozens of other cases like that where the Supreme Court has so grossly misinterpreted such a basic law or right. Just look at what the police are able to legally do today in regards to searches and seizures!
If you think that mindlessly opposing all regulation will magically stop the government from being evil, you're in for a grand awakening.
Regulations and laws are how the government is able to act in an evil manner. They are like fangs to a rattlesnake, if you take out the fangs and the venom sacs of a rattlesnake it can't do a whole lot to hurt you, sure, it can be annoying, mean, and generally unpleasant to be around, but its a lot better than a rattlesnake with fangs and poison. A government with broad powers of regulation and broad abilities to make laws are like that rattlesnake with its teeth and poison, reducing the power it has to regulate and make laws slowly takes away those tools of evil making it a whole lot more safer.
So the answer to something caused by government (most cable monopolies are subsidized either in the past or in the present, few are free market "monopolies") is more government? Is the answer to cyanide poising more cyanide?
There is a reason that a good chunk of ISPs don't throttle connections it is because it makes more sense for them financially not to.
If/When net neutrality is in place the next step will be to have mandatory monitoring and blocking of "offending" sites. Just look at Europe for example where government regulation of the internet is commonplace, a lot of ISPs have blocked The Pirate Bay due to court orders, on the other hand, I don't know of a single major US ISP that has blocked The Pirate Bay.
Ok, so how much cyanide do you want? All regulations in some way or another end up being draconian. Even the most innocent, common sense regulations end up being twisted by politicians, the regulatory committees or the courts to mean something completely different. Tell me, which regulations aren't draconian? Which ones won't be misinterpreted? The only sane course of action is to oppose all regulations except for the most basic restrictions against fraud and force and let the free market do its job. A limited government or limited regulation is an oxymoron, a government will never be limited, regulation will never be limited it will either end up as too much regulation or as fraud (the masses believe it to be run as according to the regulations but it isn't).
Consider the case of Wickard V. Filburn (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn ) which took the phrase "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes" in the US constitution and made it somehow apply to a guy growing wheat for his own consumption on his own farm. If something that basic can be so misinterpreted, what can't be misinterpreted?
Well of course, Romney is a career politician, his entire job description is to be all over the place to gain votes. The only candidates who stick to a consistent position are considered "unelectable".
And I doubt you can really say what the Republican party really stands on any one issue, anymore its made out of 3 major camps, you've got the "neo" conservatives which believe in having a strong offensive military and government control over the economy, you've got the tea partiers who want the big military but don't want the government control over the economy and then you've got the moderate libertarians who want a smaller military and less/no government control over the economy. You get guys ranging from John McCain and Dick Chaney all the way to people like Ron Paul and Gary Johnson who have put themselves at one time or the other under the Republican party banner.
Except for the fact that small regulations always allowed the government to gain more and more control. Just look at what a simple clause allowing the federal government to regulate interstate commerce has turned into, its gone from making sure that states get along to allowing the micromanagement of the tiniest thing because it might possibly have a very tiny chance of being traded interstate.
Copyright is silly, its not property, it shouldn't be treated as such.
If you are really good at creating something, you will make money without resorting to imaginary property. Be it live performances, lectures, donations, guidance, etc. Will the death of imaginary property mean the end of a lot of mediocrity? Yes. Will it be the death of truly great artists and authors? Of course not.
How about a compromise that would:
A) Preserve property rights
B) Protect the internet
C) Keep the internet free
What I propose is that net neutrality be built into the requirements for ISPs to obtain federal/state/local funding. Don't want to implement net neutrality? Don't take taxpayer dollars. Want to take taxpayer dollars for your ISP? Implement net neutrality.
Its the best of both worlds.
That's the odd thing about Nintendo though, they generally end up defining the generation and while 95% of the games on the system are utter crap the other 5% is the stuff that defines the generation. The Wii has had a lot of gems, Super Mario Galaxy (2), Super Smash Bros. Brawl, Skyward Sword, and Xenoblade. The games you can't get on the PS3 or 360.
While I have to say I use my Wii a lot less than I do my 360 (or 3DS for that matter) easily 4 out of the 5 best games I've played this generation have been Nintendo exclusives (Brawl, Super Mario Galaxy 2, Xenoblade, Super Mario 3D Land) the lone non-Nintendo game would have to be Tales of Vesperia.
Switch to the better Linux distribution. It is unlikely (unless you are writing low level programs) that you will ever have a problem with changes made in the Linux kernel. The biggest problems with Linux distribution are all the UI changes (such as GNOME 3 and Unity). For example, I switched from Vista on my machines to Ubuntu because it took me about 30 minutes to configure a generic Ubuntu install to one that fit my preferences, it took me a good 3-4 hours to configure a Vista install to one that fit my preferences because they system would fight me all the way. A couple of years ago, Ubuntu made a bunch of stupid changes which meant that configuring a new install would take me a good 3-4 hours to configure, configuring a Debian install took only about 30 minutes. Eventually my Debian install became out of date and it made more sense to go to Linux Mint rather than spend 3-4 hours configuring and updating Debian, etc.
The problem is, I haven't ever found an Android or iOS game that held my interest for longer than a few seconds. Sure, they might be cheaper but the games are either:
A) Not fun
B) Not long enough
C) Don't work without physical buttons (I'm looking at you Final Fantasy for iOS)
D) Too expensive for the amount of fun. I don't want to spend $10 for an hour long game.
Other than emulators, I haven't found a decent game for my Android phone and the emulator kinda kills the portability because in order to actually play them you have to have a bluetooth controller...
Except for the fact that if they'd make it be a general purpose computer, it would suck.
Have you ever actually -used- the web browser on the 3DS? Its slow, its clunky and basically useless.
Sure, it might be fun for us nerds to run Linux on the 3DS, but anytime you try to make a game console be more than a game console, it doesn't really work out.
The funny thing is, Nintendo is probably the healthiest game/hardware maker in the business. Unlike Sony/Microsoft, Nintendo usually makes a profit on their hardware rather than selling it at a loss in hope of recouping their loss via games. The Wii has outsold the 360 and the PS3, the 3DS has outsold the PS Vita by leaps and bounds.
Nintendo is far from being the next Sega.
Yep. After Windows 7 I actually thought Microsoft was getting better, after all IE is now actually usable, Windows Phone 7 is actually pretty neat (not good enough to replace my Android phone, but not the buggy crap which was the old Windows Mobile). But Windows 8 just seems to be stupid decision after stupid decision. I don't think I've really seen a decent idea implemented in Windows 8 so far...
Exactly. If you can modify the hosts file which should only be able to be edited by an administrator the system has been fully and utterly compromised.
Any time a system decides to make things more complicated for the end user with no benefits means its time to jump ship to a different system. Just because you -can- perhaps get a work around doesn't make this decision any better. I -could- spend a few hours getting Ubuntu to behave like I want it to, but it makes more sense for me to just jump ship to a better distribution where configuring it to fit my needs takes a couple of minutes of minor changes rather than wasting an entire afternoon to make it behave like it did before the updates ruined it.
Given how nearly everything is web based, cross platform, able to be emulated via virtualization or WINE or has a Linux/OS X alternative I don't see why anyone would stick with Windows 8 unless you were a gamer.
Moving is the only sane option right now. Voting doesn't work, sure, you can vote for the lesser evil and get slightly less tyranny or you can vote a protest vote for the Libertarian/Green/Constitution party, but in most elections they have no chance of winning. People in the US don't want freedom they want "security", security to do what no one seems to know and because most Americans haven't stepped outside their country and realized that many, many, countries work just fine without having an oppressive 1984-esque police state and are as safe, if not safer than the US.
Exploring your options outside of the US is the only sane thing you can do right now.
There needs to be a mod for funny but all to true.
And go to anywhere in the US that isn't designated as a "Free Speech Zone" and see how much freedom you have. See, the funny thing is with most Americans is they think that just because something is written on paper that you can or can't do something that is the judge of how free something is. In most other countries how free you are is measured by what you are really capable of doing, for example, I'm sure that there's no law in the UK about having to smile all the time. I'm pretty sure there's also no common law precedent forcing someone to smile but that didn't stop the British police for arresting a middle aged man suffering from Parkinson's disease for "acting suspicious" for not smiling (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/aug/08/olympics-spectator-parkinsons-arrest-smiling ).
Just because something is technically legal or technically illegal it doesn't really much matter. What matters is can you do it without being arrested, shot, beaten, etc.