North Carolina tells retired engineer he can't talk about engineering

It appears from the IJ's "details" (https://ij.org/case/nc-engineering-speech/)that Nutt is a chemical engineer. ("Wayne Nutt spent over 37 years as a practicing engineer, mostly working for the DuPont corporation in North Carolina. In that time, he worked with a variety of different technologies and designed and built a variety of things, including pipes for transportation of fluid, while developing deep expertise in chemical engineering and technology.")

He provided expert testimony on a water drainage issue. ("Wayne’s trouble started when he volunteered to testify as an expert witness in a case his son, an attorney, was litigating. The case involved a piping system in a housing development that allegedly caused flooding in nearby areas, and Wayne, who had designed plenty of pipes in his day, volunteered to testify about the volume of fluid that pipe could be expected to carry.")

Then, "After Wayne testified truthfully that he was not (and never had been) a licensed engineer, the lawyers for the defendant threatened to report him to the North Carolina Board of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors. Wayne didn’t take the threat seriously; he wasn’t designing anything or building anything, he was just offering his opinion about something that might have happened in the past."

Offering expert testimony appears to fall under the definition of "practice of engineering" (https://codes.findlaw.com/nc/chapter-89c-engineering-and-lan...). "The practice of engineering in North Carolina for projects or testimony impacting the public in North Carolina requires that the individual and company must be licensed in North Carolina. ... Our Board considers that any testimony that requires engineering knowledge to adequately provide and to protect the public falls with the definition of the practice of engineering and requires a NC PE license." (https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/NC_Engineering_ema...)

The court appears to have allowed him to provide the expert testimony, but the Board is doing what it does.

There's not much to see here; no one except the IJ is saying anything about "he can't talk about engineering"---the topic in question is expert testimony and I don't think federal courts are going to regard that as some form of protected speech in this situation.

Or are you proposing that she be thrown on the streets, jailed, exhiled, or executed? What do you propose? I too can be uncharitable but that probably doesn't lead to productive conversation.

If I'm about to cross the road, I am perfectly capable of deciding when it's safe or not. If the light is red but there's no traffic, it's safe to cross.

If I'm standing at a crossing and the light is green, meaning that I can walk, but there's a car out of control heading down the road (or an ambulance with its sirens on, etc) then it's not safe to cross, regardless of the green light.

I'm living in Germany at the moment, and you definitely get angry looks and comments for crossing when the light is red (especially if there are children around - because teaching kids to think for themselves and take personal responsibility for their safety is bad?). I find it all very weird.

"Is giving a speech about how to treat a broken bone considered ‘practicing medicine’?"

Giving the speech in a court, on the witness stand, under oath, claiming to be an expert in treating broken bones?

How about an example from engineering? A bridge collapses and fifty or sixty people die. In the resulting lawsuit, Bob, a nationally recognized bridge engineer, testifies, with many pages of reports, that the design of the bridge was substantially bad. Ted, who has a degree in engineering and worked for 20 years as an engineer (designing coffee makers, say) testifies that according to his calculations, of which he presents a plethora, the bridge design was entirely adequate and the failure was an "act of god".