> presenting from a position of authority without qualification. You mean, "presenting from a position of expertise without very specific and questionably rele

> 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.