Why stop there? Just print anything you need. Food, homes, clean air, world peace, immortality serum. At that point, the world is pretty much your oyster.

Sorry, I meant to say "almost all". I think I must have deleted something when I was proofreading the sentence. All the games on their website are available free, and the PhoneStory game that the fuss is about is not one of the ones advertised on their website.

A publicity stunt? I guess so, although the developers are independently funded, all their games are free, and they've been around for a while. They essentially produce donationware, so it's not of financial benefit to the developers. Their site is here: http://www.molleindustria.org/en/home. I recognized Every day the same dream, McDonalds Videogame, and Oiligarchy.
A friend pointed out to me MIT Press published a book that discusses most of the games in a political context: Newsgames: Journalism at Play by Ian Bogost et al, 2010.

Clauses 15.2 and 16.1 (15.2 Apps that depict violence or abuse of children will be rejected, 16.1 Apps that present excessively objectionable or crude content will be rejected) are not being contested by Molleindustria, rather they are contesting points 21.1 and 21.2, which refer to in-app donation collection methods. The response from game studio is as follows:

We are currently considering two steps:

* Produce a new version of Phone Story that depicts the violence and abuse of children involved in the electronic manufacturing supply chain in a non-crude and non-objectionable way.

* Release a version for the Android market and jailbroken ios devices.

From the publisher's website. http://phonestory.org/banned.html

Ducks as a group exist prior to the existence of a duck that claims to be a cat. The basis on which one determines whether a duck is a duck is not based on what the duck claims to be, but rather aspects of phenotype or genotype. The adherence to, or confirmation of, political disposition does not have externally verifiable truths, and thus can't be assessed on the same basis. I do agree with you though: Anonymous does have tendencies. They are very broad, and they emerge out of the tendency to associate in such a group structure. Allegiance to a prior power is one thing that seems to exclude individuals from being able to legitimately claim to be a part of Anonymous (see the Phelps family 'false flag' instigation event - probably on wikipedia). I think that finding some conceptual structure within Anon won't emerge from their conversations, but by examining their behavior over time - something Slashdot thankfully helps us to do.

I think that process is unofficially in practice (at least where I'm from) due to the fact that the amount of paperwork that the police have to go through when dealing with a charge, they're not about to bust a person smoking weed in their own home, or with a small amount of weed on their person, but if they suspect that they've found a dealer then its more worth their while.

Aside from the fact that OP seems to support decriminalization, by saying:

what I can and cannot put in my body. It's not your fucking business, or anybody else's.

what you're forgetting is that whoever this erroneous concept would apply to wouldn't have a choice in having it in their body, because their genome would be modified before their birth.

F5, F5, F5, F5!

I just come here and hit F5 as fast as I can, just in case I miss something.

I once worked for a shitty sysadmin who had a ringtone of the sound of his children crying. He once also castigated an intern for downloading "over 50 terabytes this morning!" on a 256kbps connection. Needless to say, he was a worthless human being.