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?
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.
https://ncees.org/ncees-discontinuing-pe-software-engineerin...
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".
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"
Speech can be a crime. Google limitations on free speech. The specific example you gave is in fact a crime.
I don't think it's fair to say speech can be a crime on its own.
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.
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/
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.
Realtor's are a cross between a MLM and a guild.
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.
Realtors (a trademark of the National Asociation of Realtors) are members of a private organization.
Due process can cause some predators to roam free, or cost taxpayers and victims expense to the benefit of evil people.
This argument that something should be illegal because it can cause harm is really shallow.
However, I do see the harm in someone pretending to be a doctor and giving medical advice that can hurt or kill someone.
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?
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.
If your TV had Dr Gambiting giving medical advice is carries more credence.
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.