10 ms·

Look, you're not wrong. But you have to remember that none of that matters, because I can put the following notice out, and any government prohibition of such i

Look, you're not wrong. But you have to remember that none of that matters, because I can put the following notice out, and any government prohibition of such is a big payday for me: "I, JB Reefer, am God, command you to stop driving. I am the king of all engineers, president of space, etc etc etc" and it doesn't matter. You really do get to say whatever the fuck you want in this country, as long as it doesn't cause direct harm to someone else. There's no "this doesn't apply to job title" caveat.

monochromatic 9y ago
> You really do get to say whatever the fuck you want in this country, as long as it doesn't cause direct harm to someone else The Supreme Court disagrees.
- JBReefer 9y ago
  Can you cite a case? Hate speech etc has a long history of being court-supported.
  - foobarchu 9y ago
    That's because prohibiting hate speech would be nothing but suppression of speech. If you use hate speech to incite a riot, that is a crime. Simply saying it is not. Similarly, simply saying "i am an engineer" is obviously not a crime. Students do it all the time, despite not being licensed. Using it to lend credence to your ideas around traffic lights, however, may be a different story. I think thats the crux of the dispute.
- nxc18 9y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words for example. There are more limitations but that's an easy and possibly counterintuitive example.
  - JBReefer 9y ago
    That and the Shouting Fire thing are both directly harmful. Calling yourself an engineer, not a PE, without a a PE is not directly harmful, and the Constitution overrides state laws that claim otherwise. My money is on him in this one.
    - wl 9y ago
      "Shouting fire" is a reference to Schenck v. US which has been overturned. It applied the "clear and present danger" standard. The current standard is "incitement to imminent lawless action" as articulated in Brandenburg v. Ohio.
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        > "Shouting fire" is a reference to Schenck v. US which has been overturned. It's a reference to dicta in that case, which would be dubious to cite as meaningful even had Shenck not been overturned.
rmxt 9y ago
Not sure if this is sarcasm or not, but the Constitution is but one piece of law in the US. There's a litany of state legislation (and I presume federal, as well) that regulate the use of job titles (e.g., doctor, engineer, lawyer, dentist, etc.). Most of them still on the books, and most of them attempting to nip the "direct harm to someone else" in the bud. That is what this article sort of willfully ignores: sure, this guy didn't exactly go out of of his way to harm people, but others have and do for their financial (or otherwise) benefit. [1] I doubt that these laws are going away any time soon. Perhaps modified as more and more influential people see "programming" as "engineering", but doubtful that they'll go away for things like civil/mechanical/electrical infrastructure. [1] http://laist.com/2016/01/30/fake_civil_engineers_may_have_built.php http://laist.com/2016/01/30/fake_civil_engineers_may_have_bu...
djoldman 9y ago
Well, you can't yell fire in a movie theater unless there's a fire[0]. You can't assert that you are a doctor(lawyer) while giving medical(law) advice. There are good reasons for these laws. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...
- objclxt 9y ago
  Not the fire in a crowded theater thing again! Take a look at Trope 2 here (written by an actual lawyer): https://www.popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-censorship-tropes-in-the-medias-coverage-of-free-speech-controversies/ https://www.popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-... It's a meaningless saying that doesn't actually have any real bearing on the law or the first amendment.
  - djoldman 9y ago
    Perhaps bringing up that exact saying wasn't the best choice. My purpose was to illustrate that it is factually illegal to say certain things. Other examples besides claiming to be a doctor/lawyer while giving advice include: remarks that constitute credible threats to someone's life. By the way, and appropriate to this thread, I am not a lawyer.
anigbrowl 9y ago
Oh really. http://wjactv.com/news/local/huntingdon-county-woman-exposed-as-a-fraudulent-lawyer-sentenced-to-prison http://wjactv.com/news/local/huntingdon-county-woman-exposed...

monochromatic 9y ago

> You really do get to say whatever the fuck you want in this country, as long as it doesn't cause direct harm to someone else The Supreme Court disagrees.

JBReefer 9y ago
Can you cite a case? Hate speech etc has a long history of being court-supported.
- foobarchu 9y ago
  That's because prohibiting hate speech would be nothing but suppression of speech. If you use hate speech to incite a riot, that is a crime. Simply saying it is not. Similarly, simply saying "i am an engineer" is obviously not a crime. Students do it all the time, despite not being licensed. Using it to lend credence to your ideas around traffic lights, however, may be a different story. I think thats the crux of the dispute.
nxc18 9y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words for example. There are more limitations but that's an easy and possibly counterintuitive example.
- JBReefer 9y ago
  That and the Shouting Fire thing are both directly harmful. Calling yourself an engineer, not a PE, without a a PE is not directly harmful, and the Constitution overrides state laws that claim otherwise. My money is on him in this one.
  - wl 9y ago
    "Shouting fire" is a reference to Schenck v. US which has been overturned. It applied the "clear and present danger" standard. The current standard is "incitement to imminent lawless action" as articulated in Brandenburg v. Ohio.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > "Shouting fire" is a reference to Schenck v. US which has been overturned. It's a reference to dicta in that case, which would be dubious to cite as meaningful even had Shenck not been overturned.

rmxt 9y ago

Not sure if this is sarcasm or not, but the Constitution is but one piece of law in the US. There's a litany of state legislation (and I presume federal, as well) that regulate the use of job titles (e.g., doctor, engineer, lawyer, dentist, etc.). Most of them still on the books, and most of them attempting to nip the "direct harm to someone else" in the bud. That is what this article sort of willfully ignores: sure, this guy didn't exactly go out of of his way to harm people, but others have and do for their financial (or otherwise) benefit. [1] I doubt that these laws are going away any time soon. Perhaps modified as more and more influential people see "programming" as "engineering", but doubtful that they'll go away for things like civil/mechanical/electrical infrastructure. [1] http://laist.com/2016/01/30/fake_civil_engineers_may_have_built.php http://laist.com/2016/01/30/fake_civil_engineers_may_have_bu...

djoldman 9y ago

Well, you can't yell fire in a movie theater unless there's a fire[0]. You can't assert that you are a doctor(lawyer) while giving medical(law) advice. There are good reasons for these laws. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...

objclxt 9y ago
Not the fire in a crowded theater thing again! Take a look at Trope 2 here (written by an actual lawyer): https://www.popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-censorship-tropes-in-the-medias-coverage-of-free-speech-controversies/ https://www.popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-... It's a meaningless saying that doesn't actually have any real bearing on the law or the first amendment.
- djoldman 9y ago
  Perhaps bringing up that exact saying wasn't the best choice. My purpose was to illustrate that it is factually illegal to say certain things. Other examples besides claiming to be a doctor/lawyer while giving advice include: remarks that constitute credible threats to someone's life. By the way, and appropriate to this thread, I am not a lawyer.

anigbrowl 9y ago

Oh really. http://wjactv.com/news/local/huntingdon-county-woman-exposed-as-a-fraudulent-lawyer-sentenced-to-prison http://wjactv.com/news/local/huntingdon-county-woman-exposed...