I know in the US you can call yourself a real estate agent, but not a Realtor unless you're part of the National Association of Realtors. This seems just to me: an organization shouldn't be allowed to steal a word from the English language like "engineer." But if you want to create your own brand and maintain its quality, you're more than welcome to invent a novel term and do that. But simply claiming by fiat that you have the legal right to sue someone for not following rules you've decided the rest of the world should follow despite having no moral or legal justification to do so? That's incredibly scummy.
The entire reason for this was scummy to begin with. Järlström had presented clear evidence that the system was flawed. The state or county he presented it to used his “public” title(engineer) to try and obscure the wide spread incompetence of the matter while taking nearly a year to resolve the maths in question.
So you think anyone should be able to call themselves "physicians" or "lawyers" or "police", as those are English words that predate their professional associations?
The problem is that there are a small, specialized clique of Engineers who have professional certification, and a huge population of engineers who don't have this certification and are not required to have it. The boundary between the two groups is fuzzy and a bit contentious, with each side seeking to expand their domain.
There's no such confusion when it comes to the other professions listed, no huge gray area where everyone calls you a physician even though you only work with animals: those are veterinarians.
2 of 68 in my graduating class of BSE students took the PE exam. I think almost all of us now have business cards which include the word 'engineer'. That's not a gopd position from which some outsiders can selectively declare that the term is protected.
My experience has been that anyone who claims 'engineer' is protected is selling something, or at least trying to protect the value of the scheme they bought into. There are a couple jobs that legitimately need it where the regulatory environment requires, but they know who they are and know they are rare.
I have a BSEE (and masters) and I have passed the engineering intern test. I do use my engineering knowledge for my day job and my business card says “engineer”. I would consider getting a PE but I literally know nobody with a PE and I cannot find a good reason to get one other than maybe advertising.
If you ever want to go into power distribution as an EE you'll need to stamp plans and projects and won't be promoted passed a certain point without it. I'd recommend you try to find someone at your work with one (you have to work under a P.E.) and take the test as soon as you can.
> here everyone calls you a physician even though you only work with animals
Just an aside, but that is a gigantic undersell of veterinarians. The difficulties of becoming one aside, just seeing that "humans-only" doctors only work on one kind of ape, compared to the many very different kinds of life forms a veterinarian has to deal with (of course they specialize too), I don't understand why one would think a veterinarian would deserve the word "only".
Järlström didn't claim he was a Professional Engineer (a very specific certification) just an engineer. This case is akin to someone who does wood working in their house (maybe even studied it) calling themselves a carpenter but not a Licensed Carpenter.
Speech can never be a crime "They have uttered the untoward words! Imprison them."
Speech can breach a contract "You agreed not to yell fire in my theater, you owe me damages"
Yelling fire(falsely) in a theater wasn't an example of breach of contract that is prohibited by a private agreement, but an understanding that the government has the right to prohibit speech made with the specific intent to create criminal harm. It's also not, as far as I understand, not the current legal standard, as of 2010's Holder vs. Humanitarian Law Project.
But in this case the intent is to cause harm which is a crime, not merely saying the words. Thats why the crime is "yelling fire in a crowded theater" not just "yelling fire". Notice the difference and how it becomes a completely different action altogether despite saying the same thing.
I don't think it's fair to say speech can be a crime on its own.
>But in this case the intent is to cause harm which is a crime
This is a fundamental misunderstanding. Intent is a necessary component of the crime, just like intent is necessary component of most crimes. The intent to cause harm is not the crime.
>Thats why the crime is "yelling fire in a crowded theater" not just "yelling fire". Notice the difference and how it becomes a completely different action altogether despite saying the same thing.
Actions in themselves aren't universally crimes in all contexts, that doesn't mean they aren't crimes in specific contexts.
If what you are trying to argue is that no string of words can be a crime to utter in any context, then yes you are correct, but by that standard no individual action can be labeled criminal.
>I don't think it's fair to say speech can be a crime on its own.
SCOTUS has ruled many times that all speech isn't protected by the first amendment. Some speech can be made, and has been made criminal.
Police are an obvious special case, and have special laws around it.
As for physician or lawyer, people generally have no idea which terms are protected, so it tends to be a bit meaningless. There seems to be something of a permanent argument over who gets to be called "doctor", so even people in the industry might not know if it's meaningful: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5026525/
Sure. I'm just trying to think what would be the negative consequence of someone calling themselves a lawyer or police in a TV interview like here, and I can't think of one, other than the fact that they are making an idiot out of themselves. Like, it shouldn't be illegal.
Oz has been a professor at the Department of Surgery at Columbia University since 2001. He directs the Cardiovascular Institute and Complementary Medicine Program at New York-Presbyterian Hospital. His research interests include heart valve replacement surgery, minimally invasive cardiac surgery, and health care policy.
Yes, that's my point — you don't need to not have an M.D. to spout completely false medical claims on television. I think he's a quack and his license should be revoked.
Sure. Still shouldn't be illegal. There's plenty of TV stations that make a living giving bad, wrong or plainly malicious advice(can think of quite a few) and it's not illegal.
But one way to quickly assess advice is by the person's credentials who is delivering it -- a doctor or lawyer telling you something about medicine/law warrants some degree of trust, but one may assume when they speak on other subjects that they've taken a more rigorous approach than your average person.
If your TV had Dr Gambiting giving medical advice is carries more credence.
I guess I just don't see the harm in requiring someone to say "I am not a doctor, but..." if they want to give medical advice while giving themselves the title of Dr. without having earned it.
However, I do see the harm in someone pretending to be a doctor and giving medical advice that can hurt or kill someone.
People should be held liable for intentionally stating non-truths with respect to one's own, or another's character: ie falsely claiming to have a certain medical license.
Howver, I don't see how you can come to the conclusion that ordinary people should not be able to tell their children, friends, parents, or anyone, medical advice. If so, where does it end? Can you tell your child to take medication? Which medications? Can you help victims of accidents? Give CPR? Can you tell your Father not to get that particular medical treatment? Can you tell someone to not trust a particular doctor? What you're suggesting sounds like a litigious nightmare of egg shells through life.
On principle, should we not err towards advocating for granting power to the people instead of centralized, corporate and government authority structures? Or do you just not believe in that?
> Howver, I don't see how you can come to the conclusion that ordinary people should not be able to tell their children, friends, parents, or anyone, medical advice.
Please do not strawman my position. The discussion was about people purposely portraying themselves as doctors and then dispensing medical advice.
I have no problem with someone giving medical advice. I do have a problem with someone pretending to be a doctor while giving medical advice.
I get mistaken for somebody with authority all the time. What happens when a lay member of the public offers medical advice, and the recipient mistakes them for a doctor despite having made no claims to that title?
Fraud is lying for financial gain. Lying for its own sake is not. You can say and pretend you are a lawyer as much as you like, but only as long as you don't do it to decieve someone for money.
I'm not sure what your point is. That's exactly what we are saying - there is a legal standard for actually being a lawyer.
But, we are also saying there shouldn't be any repercusions for someone just saying that they are a lawyer in any non-financial, non-professional context. If you go out and say to someone "hey, I'm a lawyer and I am very smart" then this shouldn't be illegal in any way or form, just like saying you are a pope or Bonaparte isn't - you're just making an idiot out of yourself. As long as you don't go and act as a lawyer(try to represent people for money for instance) then knock yourself out. This should be double obvious seeing as we're on the internet, where you can say you are a noble-winning physicist or a NASA engineer and without a way to verify it it matters nothing. It is scummy, immoral, unfair to lie about it? Of course it is. But it shouldn't be illegal.
Real estate agents are legally acting as a lawyer in a very specific scope in some states. They are considered to be one, again in a very narrow scope.
And no Realtors/real estate agents in no way is anything close to an mlm. They work as an authorized extension of a licenced broker. They work on their behalf with oversight and receive compensation. But that is literally every job.
Not lawyer, attorney (someone with the legal right to act on another's behalf in a legally binding manner). Where a lawyer is an attorney-at-law, a real estate agent (whether a "realtor" or not) would be an ad hoc attorney-in-fact.
Being a real estate sales agent, in my US state, requires licensure. It's not a particularly difficult test, and arguably it has a component or protectionism to it, but there is also liability too.
Realtors (a trademark of the National Asociation of Realtors) are members of a private organization.
You can be a programmer without being an engineer. But there are thousands of electrical engineers, mechanical engineers, chemical engineers, computer engineers, and others who have degrees that say "engineer" and use engineering practices who are absolutely real engineers, if not Professional Engineers.
> Engineers, as practitioners of engineering, are professionals who invent, design, analyze, build, and test machines, systems, structures and materials to fulfill objectives and requirements while considering the limitations imposed by practicality, regulation, safety, and cost
This fits a lot of software development (esp. "systems"). The process of developing software is an engineering process, not a mathematical or design process, so it makes sense to use the term "engineer". However, I wouldn't use the term for all programmers, as not all programming does the full process.
In any case, the term "engineer" is very vague and has broadened significantly over time, whereas terms like lawyer and physician have stayed pretty consistent.
The words engineer and engineering connote high intellect, professionalism and most importantly "gravitas". So, it's not a surprise that software developers/coders/programmers (usually a snubbed crowd) love being called engineers.
