... our simple traversal through an expanding universe is causing time dilation, but only relative to a hypothetical object that is 'not moving' away from the 'center' of the universe as fast as our galaxy.
So if you could help me understand this part. As I understand it, special relativity says that you cannot know the speed of something unless you are comparing it relative to the speed of another object?
If that is the case then couldn't you somehow do experiments at different speeds from (our earth's) zero m/s to light speed. Revealing a graph that showed how clocks on the test flights recorded time. Wouldn't the graph show how fast the earth was moving against the 'empty space', by kind of interpolating or guessing how the curve goes when speed is less than 'earth zero m/s'? I'm sorry for the awkward explanation.
Re:The e-mail I sent to the editor was ignored.
on
No Time Travel, Sorry
·
· Score: 1
That alone should make it pretty clear that this isn't meant to be taken seriously.
Although, without the URL people could easily be mistaken for this being a real claim.
For example, from the top of the first page:
Before I continue, less I be immediately branded as an anti-relativity crank, let me make it perfectly clear that I agree with the mathematical and predictive correctness of both the Special and the General Theory of Relativity.
Time dilation and the parralax effect are unrelated phenomena.
The parent poster related them by showing that with the parallax effect, the mountain will appear to move at a different rate for someone 50km away and another person 5km away.
Similarly for time dilation, time will move at a different rate for someone moving at 50% light speed compared to 5%.
I will also note that imperfect analogies can be really useful when teaching difficult concepts, as the parent poster was doing.
technically just 'walking' will create a small bit of 'time dilation' it might be impossibly small to try and detect, or course.
I am only an armchair physicist but I recently read about current string theory, and how it appears there may be a minimum size for objects in the universe (plank length).
So I was thinking, if time was also like this, with a minimum length, then what would happen if you walked at only 3 or 4 plank lengths per hour? It would seem that time dilation would not have a chance to kick in, because it would have to somehow slow you down by only a fraction of a plank length per hour, breaking that minimum length rule (if it even exists).
The only real (i.e. existing physically) part of our time perception is now.
Not according to most current theories of spacetime.
Can you explain what you mean by that? I would have thought 'now' would be a useful concept for using theories of spacetime in practice. I don't mean that to sound cheeky btw.
One is the general argument that developers deserve to get paid...
... and the other is that he specifically deserves to be paid...
Well if the first argument is true then the second one would flow on from that, unless you counter-argue that he stole so much in the past that he doesn't morally deserve the money.
But the first argument stands on its own because it is a general argument, hence the reason you cannot refer to his past actions to counter it. And after reading the letter it is pretty clear that he is making a general argument (albeit from a subjective viewpoint).
I criticise the U.S. first because I love her best...
I like to judge people and countries on a level playing field because I believe people should be treated equally (and basically have the same abilities). I guess that's where we differ. To me it is similar to globalization vs nationalism debate.
(It's well-documented at this point that "loyalty" -- to Bush, not America -- is the single most important thing to this admin.)
Can you show me any short paragraphs or excerpts from your well documented evidence? Or will it be a link to a 5 page article full of vague accusations?
So, the only people who should be permitted to have opinions, is people whose opinions will be ignored?
Political opinions are only for elected politicians to express. Or do you want school principals telling students how true Intelligent Design is, republican promotional posters throughout the local DMV, government cancer research scientists telling us that Democrats are allowing cancer to happen because their anti smoking policy is rubbish (these are all made up of course).
They are pretty bad examples by my standards, but don't you agree they show the problem with allowing staff to express their wildly mixed political opinions? Do you know how hard the press can run with a high level employee making such statements?
If you've worked hard and established a good professional reputation you have to be disqualified from taking advantage of your First Amendment rights?
For government staff, I think yes, first amendment rights should be severly restricted as far as political speech goes. The reason for this is because they will easily be misrepresented to speak for the organization. Why should head scientist of NASA get a bigger say than head scientist of McDonalds? It's not fair to use your position in the media like that, beside the bigger problem of politics entering science.
Note that the article does not indicate that he used government resources to make any of the statements you object to.
He used his position. Do you think he would've been just as well heard if he were not hired as head scientist of NASA? I wouldn't think many republicans would like the idea of paying tax money to hear their party bashed by a non-elected person. And if you don't believe he 'bashed' repubs, you are at least arguing that that is ok in that position.
This person thinks that scientists, like others, are entitled to all kinds of beliefs, including political ones.
I agree, scientists in general should be allowed to express their politics in any legal way. Non-elected government staff should not (and I'm pretty sure they are currently not allowed).
Others have already commented sufficiently on how silly the "congressmen" thing is.
Well, if you believe that scientists' sole role is discover "facts", then you may be right, there is no censorship.
But scientists are not just automatons.
Who ever said that fact discovery was an automatic process? It is far from it as any scientist will tell you.
They must also interpret their research and engage with society to help explore the implications and possible applications of what they do.
Nothing wrong with exploring data.
What we see happening here is the admininstration trying to put a filter over that process so that the scientists discuss only the research that puts the current policies in a good light.
No. What we see here is the head scientists of NASA repeatedly trying to express his pro-Democrat viewpoints. There have been no scientific facts censored by the government. You are the 5th person who has told me so and also the 5th to give no evidence.
Would you mind if bush hired a right winger for the job, who then went on to "discover with the community" just how scientifically right going into Iraq was? Or maybe a more realistic example, with the head scientist claiming ID is a valid theory because that is his interpretation of the research.
Standard US Government defense #3 -- "But somewhere at some point some other government was worse!" You can't justify an immoral action by pointing out that others have taken more immoral actions.
You seem a bit mixed up. No one is claiming that an action is ok because there are worse actions being done around them. If anyone really believed that then it would be easy to show them where it breaks down.
He is saying that it is wrong to blast someone for their action, yet say nothing about the far worse attrocities. This is a very different concept.
At the same time, I'd remind everyone of Washington's support for a whole host of quite horrible right-wing dictatorships in Chile, South Vietnam, South Africa
Washington "supports" South Vietnam? South Vietnam has a "horrible right-wing" government?
Do you remember a little thing called the Vietnam war? It was an act by the US to try to stop the dictatorship from killing, torturing and overtaking South Vietnam. So claiming that the US supports them is pretty much the opposite.
As for "right wing", I'll leave that for you to read the first few lines from any encyclopedia on what type of government they actually have there.
I was simply stating that those who demonize the US while ignoring similar or worse acts by others are HYPOCRITES.
In particular I find extremely hypocritical anyone who ignores civilians being killed in Isreal, yet will devote huge amounts of energy to other less important things.
The GP said "I guess you're not a fan of the quaint notion that "a better world starts with me". By that (rediculous) theory, you would prioritize getting a haircut while a civilian was murdered in front of you.
Violence is violence, and people feel it the same whether they are born in Sudan or New Zealand. Priority *must* be put on stopping the most horrific violence and torture, and *all* politics and prejudice must be put aside for that task.
... the Bush government has so far invaded 2 sovereign nations...
And yet the Republicans claim that it was to free people from documented genocide. Is it fair to not accept that as their belief on the matter?
... committed God-knows how many people to a period of miserable hell at Gitmo...
These people were suspected terrorists and will be given a fair trial eventually (I admit that making them wait years for it is very wrong).
... rabbitted on like something worthy of Monty Python about Iran...
You seem to be ignoring Irans 'rabbiting'. Something about taking an entire country off the map (civilians and all). I guess you are right, just let them get nukes and hope they don't live up to their statements is the best way!
... had a hand in loads of other things too numerous and dodgy to mention...
Any evidence for these dodgy things would be great. Note that evidence does *not* include the following: conjecture, heresay, a link to democraticunderground.com/bush_is_evil.html .
Obviously it's not all Americans that feel this way, but from what I've seen (and this includes living there for 4 years) it's certainly a majority
Yet republicans won the election with a majority.
Iraq (and soon, Iran, I'm sure) is just about oil and protecting America's regional sweetheart, Israel.
So genocide didn't happen in Iraq? If you say it didn't, I will present documented evidence in a reply. If you say it did, then how could you claim it is "just about oil"?
Note that pointing to different countries that committed genocide in the past, yet weren't invaded, is a logical fallacy (an often used one too). For example, if you saw domestic violence yesterday in the house on your right, yet did not do anything, it would not change your reason for preventing it in the house on your left *today*. There could be many reasons why you didnt' intervine the first time, ranging from being too scared, not having the resources/weapons, disliking the person being assaulted, having monetary ties with the abuser which would be severed if any intervention took place, having emotional ties with the abuser, and more.
Israel. Funny, isn't it, that Israel is allowed to have nuclear weapons but anyone else in the region gets a stern talking to, followed by invasion, for daring to think about the same.
Why single out Israel? You seem to have a hate brewing for that country for some reason. There are other countries with nukes you know. Iran is the only one that has openly threatened to wipe out another country (at least in the last 5 years).
Perhaps I'm out of touch, but I thought the distinction between "scientist" and "congressman" was a fairly obvious one.
From the article:...he complained that government climate scientists were being muzzled and said he planned to vote for Senator John Kerry.
Since when do scientists broadcast their voting preference? Whether he intended it or not, that statement alone has a lot of sway when you are head scientist of a government agency. Compare to the sway it would have if he were not in that position.
So I think what you said is really the whole problem here. The people do not want scientists broadcasting their political beliefs, and do not want to see the line blurred between congressmen and government scientists.
Dear patient: You have lung cancer. I'm not at liberty to discuss if we should do anything about it.
That is not public policy, so the analogy breaks there. Equivalent would be the head doctor of a government agency putting forward his opinion that lung cancer is caused by masterbating, and has nothing to do with cigarettes.
If you drive your car over the cliff you will die. I have no opinion on whether or not you should drive your car over the cliff.
Again, this is not public policy being put forward. Do you really want non-elected scientists trying to sway policy? You may not mind when it is someone like this, who was publically calling for Kerry to win 2004 election (it's in the article).
Did you read the article? Among the "review process" censored things like data and the conclusion that 2005 was the warmest year on record in 100 years.
From the article: After that speech and the release of data by Dr. Hansen on Dec. 15 showing that 2005 was probably the warmest year in at least a century, officials at the headquarters of the space agency repeatedly phoned public affairs officers, who relayed the warning to Dr. Hansen that there would be "dire consequences" if such statements continued, those officers and Dr. Hansen said in interviews.
So he wanted to express his opinion that is was probably the hottest year, and yet you claim they "censored data". Very dishonest.
The story here is that censorship of scientists is rife in government funded research institutions:
Please list all scientific facts (or accepted theories) that have been censored by the government. If you can't list a single one, then I can only assume that they are 'censoring' this scientist from making policy statements as head scientist of NASA.
And why must this be a "liberal attempt" at anything.
He fell out of favor with the White House in 2004 after giving a speech at the University of Iowa before the presidential election, in which he complained that government climate scientists were being muzzled and said he planned to vote for Senator John Kerry.
Doesn't prove anything but when scientists start getting publically political it is suspicious.
Is "biased misinformation" any worse than "misinformation" or "biased information"?
Oh, and the Republican Party would like to have a word with you.
Your weak, offtopic attack on a political party aside, yes 'biased misinformation' worse than 'biased information'. The reason for this is that one of them contains lies, the other one contains only truths.
I mean, who doesn't talk with some level of bias in normal conversation? Your own comment on Republicans shows that the things you say, like most other humans, contains traces of bias. Would you then say that your general every-day speech is no worse than biased lies?
Ultimately you could argue that bias is a form of lying, in that it purposely omits facts in an attempt to resemble something other than the truth. But this relies on there being an objective truth, which moral relativists would disagree with.
The fact that government does censor us (and you're ok with it) proves to me that I'm fights the good fight in repudiating copyright and any laws restricting voluntary trades.
Nothing wrong with repudiating copyright, I'm pretty much against any restrictions on information, so best not to assume like that.
You kids today prove you're indoctrinated by public education.
I simply pointed out the error in the parent post, which was to assume that the constitutional right to free speech should be as simple as that. Unfortunately there are things such as 'violent' speech (examples include yelling fire in theature or calling for death of a civilian). I offered no opinion, let alone an opinion that I was allegedly was too dumb to form myself, but thanks anyway.
To the government: Stop trying to second guess the "intentions" of the founders (with your biases interpreting things in your favor) and just read what the Constitution says.
Err, didn't the GP post just point out the exact reasons that was a dumb idea? (e.g. it would allow calling a cop motherfucker to his face, free hate / death rally speech etc.).
Slashdot Mirror
If you honestly believe that the US did any of those things to "help and be nice to Muslims," then you are one gullible nitwit. ...
... So, not only was the US not really trying to be "nice to Muslims," ...
Nice contradiction there.
... our simple traversal through an expanding universe is causing time dilation, but only relative to a hypothetical object that is 'not moving' away from the 'center' of the universe as fast as our galaxy.
So if you could help me understand this part. As I understand it, special relativity says that you cannot know the speed of something unless you are comparing it relative to the speed of another object?
If that is the case then couldn't you somehow do experiments at different speeds from (our earth's) zero m/s to light speed. Revealing a graph that showed how clocks on the test flights recorded time. Wouldn't the graph show how fast the earth was moving against the 'empty space', by kind of interpolating or guessing how the curve goes when speed is less than 'earth zero m/s'? I'm sorry for the awkward explanation.
That alone should make it pretty clear that this isn't meant to be taken seriously.
Although, without the URL people could easily be mistaken for this being a real claim.
For example, from the top of the first page:
Before I continue, less I be immediately branded as an anti-relativity crank, let me make it perfectly clear that I agree with the mathematical and predictive correctness of both the Special and the General Theory of Relativity.
Time dilation and the parralax effect are unrelated phenomena.
The parent poster related them by showing that with the parallax effect, the mountain will appear to move at a different rate for someone 50km away and another person 5km away.
Similarly for time dilation, time will move at a different rate for someone moving at 50% light speed compared to 5%.
I will also note that imperfect analogies can be really useful when teaching difficult concepts, as the parent poster was doing.
technically just 'walking' will create a small bit of 'time dilation' it might be impossibly small to try and detect, or course.
I am only an armchair physicist but I recently read about current string theory, and how it appears there may be a minimum size for objects in the universe (plank length).
So I was thinking, if time was also like this, with a minimum length, then what would happen if you walked at only 3 or 4 plank lengths per hour? It would seem that time dilation would not have a chance to kick in, because it would have to somehow slow you down by only a fraction of a plank length per hour, breaking that minimum length rule (if it even exists).
Not according to most current theories of spacetime.
Can you explain what you mean by that? I would have thought 'now' would be a useful concept for using theories of spacetime in practice. I don't mean that to sound cheeky btw.
One is the general argument that developers deserve to get paid ...
... and the other is that he specifically deserves to be paid ...
Well if the first argument is true then the second one would flow on from that, unless you counter-argue that he stole so much in the past that he doesn't morally deserve the money.
But the first argument stands on its own because it is a general argument, hence the reason you cannot refer to his past actions to counter it. And after reading the letter it is pretty clear that he is making a general argument (albeit from a subjective viewpoint).
I criticise the U.S. first because I love her best ...
I like to judge people and countries on a level playing field because I believe people should be treated equally (and basically have the same abilities). I guess that's where we differ. To me it is similar to globalization vs nationalism debate.
(It's well-documented at this point that "loyalty" -- to Bush, not America -- is the single most important thing to this admin.)
Can you show me any short paragraphs or excerpts from your well documented evidence? Or will it be a link to a 5 page article full of vague accusations?
So, the only people who should be permitted to have opinions, is people whose opinions will be ignored?
Political opinions are only for elected politicians to express. Or do you want school principals telling students how true Intelligent Design is, republican promotional posters throughout the local DMV, government cancer research scientists telling us that Democrats are allowing cancer to happen because their anti smoking policy is rubbish (these are all made up of course).
They are pretty bad examples by my standards, but don't you agree they show the problem with allowing staff to express their wildly mixed political opinions? Do you know how hard the press can run with a high level employee making such statements?
If you've worked hard and established a good professional reputation you have to be disqualified from taking advantage of your First Amendment rights?
For government staff, I think yes, first amendment rights should be severly restricted as far as political speech goes. The reason for this is because they will easily be misrepresented to speak for the organization. Why should head scientist of NASA get a bigger say than head scientist of McDonalds? It's not fair to use your position in the media like that, beside the bigger problem of politics entering science.
Note that the article does not indicate that he used government resources to make any of the statements you object to.
He used his position. Do you think he would've been just as well heard if he were not hired as head scientist of NASA? I wouldn't think many republicans would like the idea of paying tax money to hear their party bashed by a non-elected person. And if you don't believe he 'bashed' repubs, you are at least arguing that that is ok in that position.
This person thinks that scientists, like others, are entitled to all kinds of beliefs, including political ones.
I agree, scientists in general should be allowed to express their politics in any legal way. Non-elected government staff should not (and I'm pretty sure they are currently not allowed).
Others have already commented sufficiently on how silly the "congressmen" thing is.
I don't understand this one.
Well, if you believe that scientists' sole role is discover "facts", then you may be right, there is no censorship.
But scientists are not just automatons.
Who ever said that fact discovery was an automatic process? It is far from it as any scientist will tell you.
They must also interpret their research and engage with society to help explore the implications and possible applications of what they do.
Nothing wrong with exploring data.
What we see happening here is the admininstration trying to put a filter over that process so that the scientists discuss only the research that puts the current policies in a good light.
No. What we see here is the head scientists of NASA repeatedly trying to express his pro-Democrat viewpoints. There have been no scientific facts censored by the government. You are the 5th person who has told me so and also the 5th to give no evidence.
Would you mind if bush hired a right winger for the job, who then went on to "discover with the community" just how scientifically right going into Iraq was? Or maybe a more realistic example, with the head scientist claiming ID is a valid theory because that is his interpretation of the research.
It isn't an opinion. That isn't how (real) science works. It is an educated guess based on the data they have so far.
I'll have to inform the other scientists.
Over to you.
Thanks Simon.
None of these were censored by the government, as my original request asked. Over to u.
Standard US Government defense #3 -- "But somewhere at some point some other government was worse!" You can't justify an immoral action by pointing out that others have taken more immoral actions.
You seem a bit mixed up. No one is claiming that an action is ok because there are worse actions being done around them. If anyone really believed that then it would be easy to show them where it breaks down.
He is saying that it is wrong to blast someone for their action, yet say nothing about the far worse attrocities. This is a very different concept.
At the same time, I'd remind everyone of Washington's support for a whole host of quite horrible right-wing dictatorships in Chile, South Vietnam, South Africa
Washington "supports" South Vietnam? South Vietnam has a "horrible right-wing" government?
Do you remember a little thing called the Vietnam war? It was an act by the US to try to stop the dictatorship from killing, torturing and overtaking South Vietnam. So claiming that the US supports them is pretty much the opposite.
As for "right wing", I'll leave that for you to read the first few lines from any encyclopedia on what type of government they actually have there.
I was simply stating that those who demonize the US while ignoring similar or worse acts by others are HYPOCRITES.
In particular I find extremely hypocritical anyone who ignores civilians being killed in Isreal, yet will devote huge amounts of energy to other less important things.
The GP said "I guess you're not a fan of the quaint notion that "a better world starts with me". By that (rediculous) theory, you would prioritize getting a haircut while a civilian was murdered in front of you.
Violence is violence, and people feel it the same whether they are born in Sudan or New Zealand. Priority *must* be put on stopping the most horrific violence and torture, and *all* politics and prejudice must be put aside for that task.
... the Bush government has so far invaded 2 sovereign nations ...
... committed God-knows how many people to a period of miserable hell at Gitmo ...
... rabbitted on like something worthy of Monty Python about Iran ...
... had a hand in loads of other things too numerous and dodgy to mention ...
And yet the Republicans claim that it was to free people from documented genocide. Is it fair to not accept that as their belief on the matter?
These people were suspected terrorists and will be given a fair trial eventually (I admit that making them wait years for it is very wrong).
You seem to be ignoring Irans 'rabbiting'. Something about taking an entire country off the map (civilians and all). I guess you are right, just let them get nukes and hope they don't live up to their statements is the best way!
Any evidence for these dodgy things would be great. Note that evidence does *not* include the following: conjecture, heresay, a link to democraticunderground.com/bush_is_evil.html .
Obviously it's not all Americans that feel this way, but from what I've seen (and this includes living there for 4 years) it's certainly a majority
Yet republicans won the election with a majority.
Iraq (and soon, Iran, I'm sure) is just about oil and protecting America's regional sweetheart, Israel.
So genocide didn't happen in Iraq? If you say it didn't, I will present documented evidence in a reply. If you say it did, then how could you claim it is "just about oil"?
Note that pointing to different countries that committed genocide in the past, yet weren't invaded, is a logical fallacy (an often used one too). For example, if you saw domestic violence yesterday in the house on your right, yet did not do anything, it would not change your reason for preventing it in the house on your left *today*. There could be many reasons why you didnt' intervine the first time, ranging from being too scared, not having the resources/weapons, disliking the person being assaulted, having monetary ties with the abuser which would be severed if any intervention took place, having emotional ties with the abuser, and more.
Israel. Funny, isn't it, that Israel is allowed to have nuclear weapons but anyone else in the region gets a stern talking to, followed by invasion, for daring to think about the same.
Why single out Israel? You seem to have a hate brewing for that country for some reason. There are other countries with nukes you know. Iran is the only one that has openly threatened to wipe out another country (at least in the last 5 years).
Perhaps I'm out of touch, but I thought the distinction between "scientist" and "congressman" was a fairly obvious one.
...he complained that government climate scientists were being muzzled and said he planned to vote for Senator John Kerry.
From the article:
Since when do scientists broadcast their voting preference? Whether he intended it or not, that statement alone has a lot of sway when you are head scientist of a government agency. Compare to the sway it would have if he were not in that position.
So I think what you said is really the whole problem here. The people do not want scientists broadcasting their political beliefs, and do not want to see the line blurred between congressmen and government scientists.
You got PROOF of that bullshit statement? And I mean HARD evidence not "talking points"...
Lol, 8 replies and not a single shred of evidence posted (an unhealthy amount of conjecture though).
Dear patient: You have lung cancer. I'm not at liberty to discuss if we should do anything about it.
That is not public policy, so the analogy breaks there. Equivalent would be the head doctor of a government agency putting forward his opinion that lung cancer is caused by masterbating, and has nothing to do with cigarettes.
If you drive your car over the cliff you will die. I have no opinion on whether or not you should drive your car over the cliff.
Again, this is not public policy being put forward. Do you really want non-elected scientists trying to sway policy? You may not mind when it is someone like this, who was publically calling for Kerry to win 2004 election (it's in the article).
Did you read the article? Among the "review process" censored things like data and the conclusion that 2005 was the warmest year on record in 100 years.
From the article:
After that speech and the release of data by Dr. Hansen on Dec. 15 showing that 2005 was probably the warmest year in at least a century, officials at the headquarters of the space agency repeatedly phoned public affairs officers, who relayed the warning to Dr. Hansen that there would be "dire consequences" if such statements continued, those officers and Dr. Hansen said in interviews.
So he wanted to express his opinion that is was probably the hottest year, and yet you claim they "censored data". Very dishonest.
The story here is that censorship of scientists is rife in government funded research institutions:
Please list all scientific facts (or accepted theories) that have been censored by the government. If you can't list a single one, then I can only assume that they are 'censoring' this scientist from making policy statements as head scientist of NASA.
And why must this be a "liberal attempt" at anything.
He fell out of favor with the White House in 2004 after giving a speech at the University of Iowa before the presidential election, in which he complained that government climate scientists were being muzzled and said he planned to vote for Senator John Kerry.
Doesn't prove anything but when scientists start getting publically political it is suspicious.
Is "biased misinformation" any worse than "misinformation" or "biased information"?
Oh, and the Republican Party would like to have a word with you.
Your weak, offtopic attack on a political party aside, yes 'biased misinformation' worse than 'biased information'. The reason for this is that one of them contains lies, the other one contains only truths.
I mean, who doesn't talk with some level of bias in normal conversation? Your own comment on Republicans shows that the things you say, like most other humans, contains traces of bias. Would you then say that your general every-day speech is no worse than biased lies?
Ultimately you could argue that bias is a form of lying, in that it purposely omits facts in an attempt to resemble something other than the truth. But this relies on there being an objective truth, which moral relativists would disagree with.
The fact that government does censor us (and you're ok with it) proves to me that I'm fights the good fight in repudiating copyright and any laws restricting voluntary trades.
Nothing wrong with repudiating copyright, I'm pretty much against any restrictions on information, so best not to assume like that.
You kids today prove you're indoctrinated by public education.
I simply pointed out the error in the parent post, which was to assume that the constitutional right to free speech should be as simple as that. Unfortunately there are things such as 'violent' speech (examples include yelling fire in theature or calling for death of a civilian). I offered no opinion, let alone an opinion that I was allegedly was too dumb to form myself, but thanks anyway.
To the government: Stop trying to second guess the "intentions" of the founders (with your biases interpreting things in your favor) and just read what the Constitution says.
Err, didn't the GP post just point out the exact reasons that was a dumb idea? (e.g. it would allow calling a cop motherfucker to his face, free hate / death rally speech etc.).