4 ms·
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm assuming whoever wrote the act at least reviewed it with one. Here is a snippet what is says. 6787. Acts constituting a misdemeanor .
by mcshicks 5y ago
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm assuming whoever wrote the act at least reviewed it with one. Here is a snippet what is says.
6787. Acts constituting a misdemeanor ...
(h) Use the title, or any combination of that title, of “professional engineer,” “licensed
engineer,” “registered engineer,” or the branch titles specified in Section 6732, or the authority
titles specified in Sections 6736 and 6736.1, or “engineer-in-training,” or use any abbreviation of
such title that might lead to the belief that the person is a licensed engineer, is authorized to use
the titles specified in Section 6736 or 6736.1, or holds a certificate as an engineer-in-training,
without being licensed, authorized, or certified as required by this chapter.
So it seems like we do have a law (at least in California) that say something like that.
- seiferteric 5y agoYou would be surprised to learn then that California has many unconstitutional laws on the books.
- mcshicks 5y agoIn this specific case is it the law that's restricting his speech, or the licensing's boards actions? I'm not necessarily taking an opinion on the actual merits of the case in the article, if anything I does sound like they are infringing on his right to free speech. But that doesn't necessarily mean the law is unconstitutional. It's easy to say something is or is not constitutional, but the end of the day we have courts to decide these questions. If I still disagree I feel strongly about it I need to contact somebody who can actually change it. Am I really going to make my beliefs about what is or isn't constitutional based on some comment posted on the internet?