6 ms·
Of course it's corporate corruption of government that is driving this case. "he is an engineer at heart and speaks up when he sees people make what he believe
by blunte 5y ago
Of course it's corporate corruption of government that is driving this case.
"he is an engineer at heart and speaks up when he sees people make what he believes to be engineering mistakes. He has written letters to state and county governments and testified before a county commission. But Wayne’s troubles began when he when he agreed to help his son, Kyle, a North Carolina attorney, with a case about a piping system that allegedly flooded a few local homes"
If he were telling lies, he would be legally accountable to the individuals or companies that his lies harmed. That would probably be an easy case to bring against him to stop him from telling lies. But this approach of trying to silence him on grounds of not technically being an engineer shows plainly that he is telling enough truth that he wouldn't be accountable for lying and causing harm.
Cases like this are probably common, although the methods of silencing vary from situation to situation. While the US may not be as corrupt as many other countries, it still has a significant amount which ultimately harms the general public and certainly harms the few individuals that find themselves on the wrong side of a corrupt authority.
- mobilefriendly 5y agoThe ACLU has abandoned its defense of free speech in the US; I'm glad to see IJ taking up the mantle.
- GavinMcG 5y agoEarlier this week, the ACLU published this[0] article, "The Problem With Censoring Political Speech Online – Including Trump’s". More substantively, they recently filed a brief[1] supporting Americans for Prosperity (the Koch brothers' primary political advocacy group) fighting against a government demand for donor lists. That's just the stuff I found on the national website with a minute or two of looking around—I didn't even dig into what state ACLU groups are doing, and they do the bulk of litigation. Abandoned free speech they have not. [0] https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/the-problem-with-censoring-political-speech-online-including-trumps/ https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/the-problem-with-censo... [1] https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/prosperity-foundation-v-xavier-becerra-attorney-general-california-amicus-brief https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/prosperity-foundation-v-...
- dangrossman 5y agoA counterpoint: https://archive.is/tL7Rj https://archive.is/tL7Rj (NY Times)
- gscott 5y agoIn this case he was speaking as an expert to the jury. I think the real question is who can define who can be an expert to the court. Is it the court or the state that defines the qualifications of the expert. If it is the State who can define who is an expert then the could very well require him to have a license. It is not about what he said but where he said it.