4 ms·

I think the issue is he gave expert testimony. So it’s not just speaking about it, but presenting from a position of authority without qualification. I think t

I think the issue is he gave expert testimony. So it’s not just speaking about it, but presenting from a position of authority without qualification. I think the whole expert testimony business is suspect as the definition of “expert” varies so much. But I think the correction is in the law specifying what is expect and not and making that better is the place to focus. It seems like the correction would be to invalidate his testimony, not to arrest him. It’s really hard to have legal expert testimony and separate true experts vs people with other motivators (money, family, etc).

civilized 5y ago
> presenting from a position of authority without qualification. You mean, "presenting from a position of expertise without very specific and questionably relevant credentials demanded by a local regulatory body." His education and career experience are certainly qualifications substantiating his expertise. From the OP: > “In this country, we rely on people to decide who they want to listen to rather than relying on the government to decide who gets to speak,” said IJ Attorney Joe Gay. “North Carolina’s engineering board is getting that important principle exactly backwards.” Amen, brother. For a state or local entity to curtail First Amendment rights, they must have a compelling interest in doing so. There is very little reason to believe that passing tests administered by the local engineering board actually provides any protective value to the public in a context where the person in question is merely criticizing a design (not building anything) and already has extensive hands-on experience in the subject they are speaking on. It's quite possible that, in cases like this, licensing demands mostly exist for the Board to arrogate power and money to itself. The Board must clear a much higher bar to legally punish people for speech.
SeanLuke 5y ago
Being a licensed engineer is not a requirement to being an "expert" in expert testimony. You are an expert if the court deems you an expert and the opposing counsel has agreed. Full stop. I think that the only thing an engineering license should grant you, in this case, is the right to call yourself a licensed engineer, which conveys some degree of authority. I don't think he made that claim.
- ghaff 5y ago
  Not sure why people are disagreeing. I've co-written an expert witness report and neither myself nor my co-author were licensed software engineers--which I don't believe you can even get licensed for any longer in the US. Of course, both the lawyers and the judge can take both credentials and experience into account when evaluating the credibility of such a report. Obviously, if someone isn't licensed they can't present themselves as being licensed and various regulatory agencies and the like may require someone to be licensed in order to sign off on various documents.
  - coupdejarnac 5y ago
    The computer engineering exam contains software engineering components fwiw.
- pomian 5y ago
  Perfect summary. Nicely written.

civilized 5y ago

> presenting from a position of authority without qualification. You mean, "presenting from a position of expertise without very specific and questionably relevant credentials demanded by a local regulatory body." His education and career experience are certainly qualifications substantiating his expertise. From the OP: > “In this country, we rely on people to decide who they want to listen to rather than relying on the government to decide who gets to speak,” said IJ Attorney Joe Gay. “North Carolina’s engineering board is getting that important principle exactly backwards.” Amen, brother. For a state or local entity to curtail First Amendment rights, they must have a compelling interest in doing so. There is very little reason to believe that passing tests administered by the local engineering board actually provides any protective value to the public in a context where the person in question is merely criticizing a design (not building anything) and already has extensive hands-on experience in the subject they are speaking on. It's quite possible that, in cases like this, licensing demands mostly exist for the Board to arrogate power and money to itself. The Board must clear a much higher bar to legally punish people for speech.

SeanLuke 5y ago

Being a licensed engineer is not a requirement to being an "expert" in expert testimony. You are an expert if the court deems you an expert and the opposing counsel has agreed. Full stop. I think that the only thing an engineering license should grant you, in this case, is the right to call yourself a licensed engineer, which conveys some degree of authority. I don't think he made that claim.

ghaff 5y ago
Not sure why people are disagreeing. I've co-written an expert witness report and neither myself nor my co-author were licensed software engineers--which I don't believe you can even get licensed for any longer in the US. Of course, both the lawyers and the judge can take both credentials and experience into account when evaluating the credibility of such a report. Obviously, if someone isn't licensed they can't present themselves as being licensed and various regulatory agencies and the like may require someone to be licensed in order to sign off on various documents.
- coupdejarnac 5y ago
  The computer engineering exam contains software engineering components fwiw.
pomian 5y ago
Perfect summary. Nicely written.