Oregon Unconstitutionally Fined a Man $500 for Saying 'I am an Engineer,' Federal Judge Rules (vice.com) 331
A federal district court has ruled that the state of Oregon illegally infringed on a man's First Amendment rights for fining him $500 because he wrote "I am an engineer" in a 2014 email to the state's Engineering Board. The court ruled that the provision in the law he broke is unconstitutional, which opens the door for people in the state to legally call themselves "engineers." Motherboard reports: This dystopian saga dates back to 2013, when Mats Jarlstrom's wife, while driving, was caught by a red light camera near their home in Beaverton, Oregon. Rather than pay the red light camera fine, Jarlstrom, an electrical engineer, spent months researching the specifics of yellow light timing and red light cameras, and learned that his wife had likely been ticketed for running a yellow light. Jarlstrom began sharing his findings on his personal website, at conferences, and even got featured on 60 Minutes. He also wrote several emails to the Oregon Board of Engineers explaining what he had found. In the email, he noted that he was an "engineer."
Rather than looking into whether traffic light timing should be changed, however, the board sent Jarlstrom a warning -- and then a $500 fine for the crime of "practicing engineering without being registered." Jarlstrom had violated one of Oregon's "Title Laws," which states that "no persons may ... hold themselves out as an 'engineer'" unless they are an "individual who is registered in this state and holds a valid certificate to practice engineering in this state." Jarlstrom has a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering and spent his career working in electronics, but wasn't board certified. He sued the state's engineering board and, last week, a U.S. District Court judge for the District of Oregon ruled that the state's law is unconstitutional. The judge wrote: "The statutes prohibit truthfully describing oneself as an 'engineer,' in any context. This restriction clearly controls and suppresses protected speech, and enforcement of the statute against protected speech is not a hypothetical threat. The term 'engineer,' standing alone, is neither actually nor inherently misleading. Courts have long recognized that the term 'engineer' has a generic meaning separate from 'professional engineer' and that the term has enjoyed 'widespread usage in job titles in our society to describe positions which require no professional training.'"
"The judge ordered that the word 'engineer' be struck from Oregon's law, which is 'substantially overbroad in violation of the First Amendment' and specifically noted that Jarlstrom may describe himself publicly and privately using the word 'engineer' and that he may continue to talk about traffic light timing publicly," reports Motherboard.
Rather than looking into whether traffic light timing should be changed, however, the board sent Jarlstrom a warning -- and then a $500 fine for the crime of "practicing engineering without being registered." Jarlstrom had violated one of Oregon's "Title Laws," which states that "no persons may ... hold themselves out as an 'engineer'" unless they are an "individual who is registered in this state and holds a valid certificate to practice engineering in this state." Jarlstrom has a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering and spent his career working in electronics, but wasn't board certified. He sued the state's engineering board and, last week, a U.S. District Court judge for the District of Oregon ruled that the state's law is unconstitutional. The judge wrote: "The statutes prohibit truthfully describing oneself as an 'engineer,' in any context. This restriction clearly controls and suppresses protected speech, and enforcement of the statute against protected speech is not a hypothetical threat. The term 'engineer,' standing alone, is neither actually nor inherently misleading. Courts have long recognized that the term 'engineer' has a generic meaning separate from 'professional engineer' and that the term has enjoyed 'widespread usage in job titles in our society to describe positions which require no professional training.'"
"The judge ordered that the word 'engineer' be struck from Oregon's law, which is 'substantially overbroad in violation of the First Amendment' and specifically noted that Jarlstrom may describe himself publicly and privately using the word 'engineer' and that he may continue to talk about traffic light timing publicly," reports Motherboard.
so $500 refund - 25K legal fees = big loss for him (Score:2)
so $500 refund - 25K legal fees = big loss for him
Re:so $500 refund - 25K legal fees = big loss for (Score:5, Interesting)
As a fellow engineer, but not a "professional engineer", I'll happily donate to his legal campaign, and I'll definitely give him an interview if his resume ever comes across my desk.
Re:so $500 refund - 25K legal fees = big loss for (Score:4, Interesting)
He'll get legal fees and maybe more.
Because the judge ruled that the man's constitutional rights were infringed (the whole 1st amendment thing), the loser will almost certainly have to pay the man's legal fees. The man might be able to sue for other damages as well. I'm sure the news and intrawebs will be full of answers to this question soon.
Maybe we'll even see TV ads from lawyers that say, "Have you been fined for calling yourself an engineer? You may be entitled to a large cash award. Call 1-800-SUE-4MNY".
Re: (Score:2)
can he also add in his red light ticket fine as well? or does he now have the right to fight it in court may be hard if the video is long gone.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe we'll even see TV ads from lawyers that say, "Have you been fined for calling yourself an engineer? You may be entitled to a large cash award.
Nah, there is no pain or suffering involved and there are no medical bills to pad with bogus "physical therapy". No lawyer would take this case on contigency.
Re: (Score:2)
ITYM from hucksters calling themselves lawyers.
Mr. Simpson, don't you worry. I watched Matlock in (Score:2)
Mr. Simpson, don't you worry. I watched Matlock in a bar last night. The sound wasn't on, but I think I got the gist of it.
Re:so $500 refund - 25K legal fees = big loss for (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Can he sue the board for using the law as written? Surely the people at fault are the lawmakers who made an unconstitutional law... But even then, wouldn't they just claim that they acted in good faith?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah... Proving that could be hard. Can get get discovery, get their internal emails etc?
Re:so $500 refund - 25K legal fees = big loss for (Score:4, Insightful)
This guy sort of sounds like the type who would go to the ends of the earth to prove his point if he feels he's right. People like him are often the catalyst for change. Good for him.
Also, now I know not to piss off Swedish engineers.
Re:so $500 refund - 25K legal fees = big loss for (Score:5, Informative)
so $500 refund - 25K legal fees = big loss for him
He'll probably get legal fees back plus punitive damages.
They were involved in attempting to deprive him of first amendment free speech rights under color of statute, A violation of 42 U.S. Code 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights -
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress
Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976 [cornell.edu] provides attorney's fees for:
"any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of sections 1981, 1981a, 1982, 1983, 1985, and 1986 of this title, title IX of Public Law 92–318 [20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.], the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 [42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.], the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 [42 U.S.C. 2000cc et seq.], title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.], or section 12361 of title 34"
Subway (Score:5, Funny)
That's nothing, the guy at Subway who made my sandwich had the balls to call himself an "artist".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not all of them. There's a separate division of Disney called "Walt Disney Imagineering" that deals with R&D stuff like ride design, theming, and such where the engineering staff uses the title "Imagineer", but the rank and file engineers that work for Disney on a given web site, financial system, or other mundane engineering task doesn't get to use the title.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or when I asked for an engineer at the Apple Store in Oregon, the person said "We're not allowed to call ourselves engineers, we're only geniuses."
I'm an MCSE (Score:4, Funny)
Other engineers (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The ruling held that title laws are broadly restri (Score:4, Informative)
I thought the court would hold that the state may prohibit using the title "engineer" commercially, to solicit business, but could not prohibit calling oneself an engineer in other contexts. In fact, the court ruled much more broadly. The ruling is that title laws in general are questionable, and must be narrowly tailored. (Though "professional engineer" and 'registered professional engineer" are still regulated).
Quoting here the part of the ruling that I found most interesting and surprising:
---
The Title laws restrict constitutionally protected speech. While the Court need not reach the question of whether the Title laws are invalid in every application, the Title laws prohibit a substantial amount of protected speech. The record demonstrates that the threat to free expression is not merely hypothetical. Therefore, "from the text of [the law] and from actual fact," the Court holds that the Title laws are substantially overbroad in violation of the First
Amendment. Virginia v. Hicks, 539 U.S. 113, 122 (2003)
---
https://ij.org/wp-content/uplo... [ij.org]
Re:The ruling held that title laws are broadly res (Score:5, Insightful)
The judge likely wanted to be a bit more comprehensive since he could see that the board was quite willing to abuse any hint of a technicality.
Re: (Score:2)
>Though "professional engineer" and 'registered professional engineer" are still regulated
Screw that. My job grade is "Principle Engineer", commonly called PE. Engineering is certainly my profession. I'm a professional engineer.
If the state wants to make it illegal to claim a state certification that you don't actually have, then do that. So limit it to "Oregon state registered engineer". Anything more general is legit.
Re: (Score:2)
Similarly, project engineers are called PEs where I work, but no one there mistakes that title for a certified Professional Engineer that is required to sign off on something like a multi-hundred-million dollar satellite design. We have those kinds of engineers too, and the difference is made crystal clear when it actually matters.
I'm a software engineer, and I've been paid to perform as such by legitimate companies for more than 30 years. Hence, the term "professional engineer" is wholly accurate in desc
Slashdot engineer here... (Score:2)
noun
1. a person who designs, builds, or maintains engines, machines, or public works.
verb
1. design and build (a machine or structure).
He's got a valid point (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:He's got a valid point (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Fines should not go into the government's general fund. ....
so the government's incentive for things like red lights is to time them to maximize safety, rather than to maximize revenue.
Pshaw. It's OUR money, we're just letting you hold it for awhile. Don't believe us? Just look at who printed it. (Stupid peons.)
Hey.....Heeeeeeeey. Those are some nice rights you've got there, it'd be a shame if something were to happen to them. Would you like to donate to my, I mean YOUR general tax fund?
Re: (Score:3)
There is a better solution and it has been in place in CA for many years. Require a minimum time for the yellow light based on the applicable speed limit. This must be combined with laws that prevent speed limits being set too low.
There is a second component which is also important: require that contracts for the installation of automated camera systems be revenue neutral: the amount that the company is paid to install and operate the cameras is unrelated to the amount of fines collected.
Re: He's got a valid point (Score:3)
The people in government should be fined personally for pulling this putinshit against him. Heads need to roll.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a lot of research that says the lights with cameras have the yellow light time a lot shorter than other lights, in order to maximize revenue. They should really replace the yellow light with a countdown timer before they can make people pay for entering the intersection a second after the light turns red! And yes, I've gotten caught be one of these in Tualitin myself, as I was hurrying to complete my right turn before the light went red.
No timer is needed -- the yellow should give ample time for someone driving the speed limit to either stop before they reach the intersection, or continue through without conflicting with other traffic.
So the driver has to make only one decision: "Can I stop safely before I reach the intersection", if the answer is "yes", he should stop, if "no" he should go. He shouldn't have the extra cognitive burden of calculating "is 7 seconds enough time to stop? Now there's only 3 seconds, if I speed up, I think I c
Re: (Score:2)
You can't stop safely if you peg the brakes and the person behind you is just finishing a lane change, or typing a text message.
I tend to apply the principle of least surprise. The safest action is usually the one that least surprises all the cars around you vying to trade paint.
The bright-line yellow light rule is a stupid rule to fetish over, in any case.
A good rule to fetish over is not enter
Re: (Score:2)
You can't stop safely if you peg the brakes and the person behind you is just finishing a lane change, or typing a text message.
yes, I thought that part was obvoius -- if you can't stop safely, then you're not stopping safely. A safe stop is not stomping on the brakes and coming sliding to a halt and the yellow light timing should never require that. However, you don't have much time to decide what to do about the cars behind you -- you might need to decide between getting rear-ended and blowing a red light (which might put you in a position where you hit another car or pedestrian)
Nothing screams life of the party like entering an intersection on the green, and still being trapped inside the intersection after the red. Is that even a ticket? Well, if you need to know (I don't), ask a grammar Nazi near you.
Yes, that can (and should) get you a ticket, at le
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maths should determine the yellow light time (considering the speed limit for the approach and the incline)
That way yellow light times would be consistent, and easy to prove if the yellow time is too short for an intersection.
Yeah, seems like it should be easy to have one consistent standard... or at least a minimum standard like "if the speed limit is X mph, the yellow should be no less than Y seconds" but cities could make the yellow longer if conditions warranted it, but there seems to be a number of standards, and cities appear to be able to set shorter intervals if they feel like it.
https://gizmodo.com/how-long-a... [gizmodo.com]
Re:He's got a valid point (Score:5, Interesting)
They should really replace the yellow light with a countdown timer
While this sounds good at first, it will kill people.
Tests have shown that timers on red lights decrease road rage, and people drive safer. (Probably because waiting, while seeing the countdown for the end of the wait, is less aggravating then waiting at a long traffic light without knowing when it will end.)
Similar tests show that when timers are on green lights, people speed up toward the end, trying to get there before it changes, and driving more recklessly.
Putting timers on yellow lights would be similar or worse to timers on green lights.
With car accidents being one of the leading causes of death and dismemberment, it's not hyperbole to say that we could save a number of lives by passing legislation for traffic lights requiring timers on red, and making timers illegal on yellow and green.
There is a problem with yellows on lights with cameras, but a timer for yellow is not the solution.
the truth is (Score:5, Insightful)
he was able to prove tickets were being written for those who legally pass through the lights. This means the city was going to lose money and the camera company was going to lose money too if changes were made. They had to do what they could to discredit and shut him up. It did not work.
Re: (Score:2)
he was able to prove tickets were being written for those who legally pass through the lights. This means the city was going to lose money and the camera company was going to lose money too if changes were made. They had to do what they could to discredit and shut him up. It did not work.
And that's why all red-light cameras (and their operating company) are banned in NJ.
Re: (Score:2)
he was able to prove tickets were being written for those who legally pass through the lights. This means the city was going to lose money and the camera company was going to lose money too if changes were made. They had to do what they could to discredit and shut him up. It did not work.
The NHTSA has certain rules and regulations that you have to follow in order to get state funding for interstates and things of that nature. The best way to fight something like this is to file a civil lawsuit against the municipality and the company involved. If a judge rules against them and indicates that they are violating NHTSA regulations then the entire state would have to pay back the money it has received from the federal government in the time that it was not compliant. No, I am not a lawyer, b
I'm a little surprised that states are still... (Score:2)
... fighting the battle that only people who pass the PE exam are allowed to call themselves an '"engineer". The title has become so diluted over the years that continuing to come after people for describing their occupation using the "E" word is nothing less than ridiculous.
The guy has a degree in engineering... (Score:2)
Maybe all the schools should rename the faculties if they are not turning out engineers.
depends (Score:2)
Laws intended to protect the public? (Score:2)
Similar laws in Florida for nursing and doctors: you can't say you're one unless you hold the license for the sake of public safety. There's a discussion going on right now for the growing number of DNPs (Doctor of Nursing Practice) who can say "I'm Dr. Ratchet!" but will it mislead patients in making decisions regarding their care.
So should you be licensed before you say you're an engineer and build something that will fail? Would it put the public at risk?
His Title is Irrelevant (Score:3)
Regardless if he was a licensed PE, a practicing engineer or a fry cook, if his measurements and conclusions were valid and repeatable, his voice should be heard. It's highly likely the only reason he was using his "Engineer" title was to lend credence to his fact finding and problem solving skills. I.E. to get the attention of dismissive bureaucrats.
Widespread (Score:3)
Re:Bad cases make bad law (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I wonder if we will get the same pseudo-science wooo-tastic crap we get in medicine.
I am a doctor**. Trust me and buy my hydrogen peroxide for your anus. Remember, if it hurt it works.
**not licensed in any state but I paid $15 from a website that gave me a doctorate in hydrogen nutritional supplement.
"I am a engineer*. Trust me and buy my enterprise vaporware bridge.
*not certified professional but I did beat that mobile game called bridge construction on my phone.
Who am I kidding we have that already.
Re:Bad cases make bad law (Score:4, Insightful)
Today is the first time I've heard of the term "Professional Engineer" or even PE. I've never heard of a "Government board certified professional engineer"
The reason for this is that I've only worked in engineering professions where degrees are issued by universities based on performance in school and also in positions where the industry regulates based on their own trust system.
I just read the link at NSPE.org that you provided and after reading it, unless there was a specific job which required that I wasted time and resources on such a certification, I wouldn't. They sell the thing like a two bit whore. Click the link "Why get licensed?"
I could clearly see the value of this paper as something truly meaningful if your education was a trade skill, like electrician or plumber. After all, these are apprenticeships and there should be some formal process of calling yourself a plumber before an insurance company will back your work. It can't just be that some guy named Joe, a clear educational expert since he has his name on the truck says "He's a plumber".
But for someone that is formally trained and tested over a period of 3-12 years at a university, this type of certification is useless.
NSPE even lists money and prestige as a selling point of their cert.
I think that PE should not be protected either and Professional Engineer also should not be protected. Instead, it should have to clearly state "Oregon State Board Certified Professional Engineer".
After all... as someone that knows nothing about Oregon's politics and whether the board is corrupt or not (and from the web site, it looks fishy... like a fund raising scam) why in the world would I trust someone certified by the state board of Oregon? In fact, other than their web site and news articles about this, I can't find any meaningful reference to the Oregon's state board. This seems suspicious to me.
Re: (Score:3)
Professional Engineering certification isn't common for computer/electronics engineers as their designs aren't often public safety concerns. PEs are very common and make sense for civil, mechanical, and power distribution engineers. If they screw up a design, it can affect large numbers of people. The reason you get a PE is because you can't get a building permit in most jurisdictions without construction drawings being stamped by a PE. The piece of paper is indeed valuable as without a PE, you're pretty mu
Re: (Score:3)
I Today is the first time I've heard of the term "Professional Engineer" or even PE. I've never heard of a "Government board certified professional engineer"
If your /. user ID was a little lower you probably would have. It gets brought up fairly often when people who play with code call themselves "engineers" and ruffle the people with certs. Of course, then the guy in the back of the room dressed in stripped overalls that used to drive a train coughs, and the conversation sort of dies out.
Re: (Score:3)
There should be a distinction between "Engineer" and "Licensed Professional Engineer (in Oregon)." Just like someone licensed to practice medicine in New York can claim to be a physician, but can't practice legally in Oregon.
There should also be a distinction between calling yourself a Licensed Professional Engineer (in Oregon) for the purposes of getting business as an engineer and for the purposes of, say, impressing a girl you meet at a party. In the present case, the man was not offering his services for hire, nor appearing as an expert witness at a trial, so it really isn't clear why he shouldn't be allowed to lie even about more specific qualifications.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Bad cases make bad law (Score:5, Insightful)
He was clearly a citizen talking to those in power, who are not allowed to dissuade him from doing so with punishment.
Doing engineering may require a PE, but talking to government about policies does not, and cannot.
Re:Bad cases make bad law (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bad cases make bad law (Score:5, Insightful)
He is an engineer, and the court broke the government's neck for having the temerity to fine someone who dared talk to them, the government, which is in violation of the First Amendment.
The people do not have to dance the government's self-defined fine line when discussing things.
Re:Bad cases make bad law (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
There should be a distinction between "Engineer" and "Licensed Professional Engineer (in Oregon)." Just like someone licensed to practice medicine in New York can claim to be a physician, but can't practice legally in Oregon.
That's effectively what the ruling did:
Therefore, there is an easy fix to this First Amendment problem: strike the word “engineer” from Or. Rev. Stat. 672.002(2) and Or. Rev. Stat. 672.007(1)(b). Plaintiff invites this remedy by focusing his challenge on the Title laws’ use of the word “engineer.” (Pl.’s Mot. Summ. J. at 27.) Accordingly, the term “engineer” should be stricken from these subsections, leaving the remainder of the Act intact: Or. Rev. Stat. 672.002(2) (“**Engineer**, ‘professional engineer’ or ‘registered professional engineer’ means an individual who is registered in this state and holds a valid certificate to practice engineering in this state as provided under ORS 672.002 to 672.325.”); Or. Rev. Stat. 672.007(1)(b) (“A person is practicing or offering to practice engineering if the person . . . [t]hrough the use of some other title implies that the person is **an engineer or** a registered professional engineer[.]).
(asterisks used in place of strikethrough, since Slashdot doesn't allow that).
Anyone can freely call themselves an engineer in Oregon. They just can't call themselves a PE unless licensed.
Re:Bad cases make bad law (Score:4, Informative)
But he was in fact a practicing engineer, which is why TFS refers to a "truthful" description being criminalized. He wasn't a "professional engineer", but I've yet to find any reference to him calling himself that.
As far as "sounding" authoritative, he *is* in fact an authority in as far as electrical systems go, versus being a layman.
Full disclosure: engineer, not PE, but EU dipl. eng., which is protected there but not in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Bad cases make bad law (Score:5, Insightful)
You are completely off base.
This guy is a graduate from KTH, the one of the two highest ranked technical institutions in Sweden, the second being Chalmers. His education is not one iota different from the people who are building radar systems, mobile phone systems, fighter jets etc.
HE IS AN ENGINEER! He's not fudging anything. He's not a certified PE in Oregon, but that a) doesn't make one not an Engineer and b) he never claimed to be anything such. The ones "fudging" stuff are the bureaucrats in Oregon who lied about him claiming the PE title.
Get your head out of your ass.
Re:Bad cases make bad law (Score:4)
Your analogy isn't relevant because he wasn't claiming experience he didn't have - It's more like an out-of-state doctor stating he's a medical doctor (but no more) in a state when he's not licensed to practice, and when asked on what basis he's making a medical argument.
Considering the board asked him to stop calling himself an "engineer", it's pretty clear they knew he wasn't an PE and he knew they knew he wasn't, but yet he still he persisted in calling himself an engineer. Given both sides knew the state of affairs clearly, I'm puzzled by where you see fudging going on.
On what basis do you accuse him of malicious intent?
Re: (Score:3)
I do not really think his intent was malicious, but he was trying to contact as many people as possible using his 'sounds like a credential but isn't' title in the hopes that someone would take him seriously. In short, when he did not get the respect he thought he deserved, he kept trying using
Re:Bad cases make bad law (Score:4, Insightful)
He was attempting to indicate that he wasn't some rube with a high school education that they could blow off, but someone who actually understood the engineering principles involved.
They knew he understood that they were shaving the times on the lights to create revenue and were attempting to shut him up and/or discredit him before enough people noticed to actually take them to court over their already legally established practice. A court had already said that municipalities and states were not allowed to do that.
Instead he took them to court and won. Now hopefully he or someone will follow up and hold the people responsible for fiddling with the light also accountable.
Re: (Score:3)
You think of the intent that way, but as far as I can tell it's a story you've spun out of thin air. Where's your evidence for any of this?
Here's the letter from the board that initially accused him of violating the law. It clearly states the issue was that he kept using the title in communication with that same board, so clearly the people he contacted already knew he wasn't a PE.
https://www.scribd.com/documen... [scribd.com]
You can find links to the rest here. It includes a letter of him
Re:Bad cases make bad law (Score:4, Informative)
Then the State of Oregon is free to rewrite its statute to reflect the sort of engineering that requires a PE in order to get one's stamp with regard to the use of the term, which would probably be limited to the senior person in a firm that designs complicated structures or systems and signs off on the soundness of those structures or systems. They shouldn't have the right to restrict criticism of those structures or systems, or of less complicated systems not requiring a PE's stamp to build and implement in the first place.
The man did not overstep any authority by criticizing a system that malfunctions, and he described himself as an engineer in the course of actually documenting/supporting his work. It wasn't like his criticism was limited to, "This system is broken. I'm an engineer. You need to take my word for it."
Re: (Score:2)
The man did not overstep any authority by criticizing a system that malfunctions,
There was no question on that. Of course not.
and he described himself as an engineer in the course of actually documenting/supporting his work.
The clear intent of his use of the term was to impart special importance and credibility to his statements because he is "an engineer" and thus has more knowledge about such technical stuff than normal folks do. I don't think there is any question as to his intent in calling himself an engineer. Had his being an engineer been irrelevant to him and the issue at hand he would have not said it in the first place.
But that's not dealing with the issue the court dea
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The man did not overstep any authority by criticizing a system that malfunctions,
There was no question on that. Of course not.
and he described himself as an engineer in the course of actually documenting/supporting his work.
The clear intent of his use of the term was to impart special importance and credibility to his statements because he is "an engineer" and thus has more knowledge about such technical stuff than normal folks do. I don't think there is any question as to his intent in calling himself an engineer. Had his being an engineer been irrelevant to him and the issue at hand he would have not said it in the first place.
But that's not dealing with the issue the court dealt with. I have long questioned the ability of the state to keep people from claiming to be an engineer, since a lot of people work in jobs with that specific title while not requiring any certifications from the state.
Ahhh. But he did not say "Trust me, I am a Traffic Safety Engineer," did he? He did the equivalent of saying "You can call me Dr Jittles". Which would just imply that I have some sort of doctorate and am therefore possibly more educated than most people. (and no, I am not a doctor of any kind). But if I said "I am Jittles, Medical Doctor" then I would be claiming that I have specific type of education and knowledge of medicine. Those are two different things. He's merely trying to say that he feels th
Re: (Score:2)
Or do you think "Pilots" need an Oregonian licence to call themselves "Pilots"?
Fun fact. Until July of 2017 Oregon was one of the states that did require aircraft pilots to register with the state and pay an annual fee for the privilege of being a pilot.
The guy is a legitimate Engineer.
You might want to figure out the difference between a proper noun and a run of the mill regular old noun before you start capitalizing words at random.
You are implicitly lying and guilty of libel when you say he's "acting like an engineer",
That's the first time I've heard "acting like an engineer" used in a pejorative manner. which is what it would need to be to be slander or libel. Also, the truth is an affirmative de
Re: (Score:2)
If you work on any software for Google, Facebook or Twitter then, you are automatically a software engineer.
Re: (Score:2)
Very little of that work is software engineering. Try embedded software with liability and multiple releases with updates, to learn the difference.
Re: (Score:2)
woosh!
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. Listen to that thunderous "woosh!"
Re: (Score:2)
Software engineering is the process of producing software. It is 't programming.
Do you use Lint type stuff? At what point? Do you do diff deltas in all checkins with code reviews?
Do you have mechanical processes to minimize goofs, like diffing spec updates and not just relying on revision histories?
These are just a handful of things to consider when producing software. It has nothing to do with direct coding.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Oregon hypocrisy (Score:2)
Bigots and power hungry civil servent exist across the board. Their political leaning doesnâ(TM)t always make a difference. Also, the left can be as closed minded as the right.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm really tired of this meme that you can claim to know everything about a person based solely upon a political decision in a simplistic binary choice country. We only have two main political parties, with all political issues divied up and split evently, and from that you're supposed to know everything about a person or state? Just when I think the country can't get any dumber you go and prove me wrong.
Re:Oregon hypocrisy (Score:5, Insightful)
>"Portland is "liberal", rest of the state not so much. In fact, it's been known for its racism and intolerance in the past"
Being "liberal" doesn't mean non-racist and tolerant. And being "conservative" doesn't mean being racist or intolerant. In fact, I see many, many, many cases where there is a reverse of what you said/implied and other cases where there is no relation whatsoever. Perhaps you didn't mean for it to sound like what you just said?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In fact technically "liberal" comes from french and in terms of politics and philosophy refers to someone who believes in equal rights and the right to self determination, essentially liberty and egalitarianism.
The opposite on this axis is an authoritarian.
A separate axis is where you find conservative vs progressive. Essentially a conservative is risk-averse and fearful in dedication to maintaining things as they are while a progressive is open to taking risks in exchange for at minimum an equivalent benef
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
>"In fact technically "liberal" comes from french and in terms of politics and philosophy refers to someone who believes in equal rights and the right to self determination"
And those can be achieved both though liberal and conservative means. Perfect "reverse" example is that hiring quotas, mostly supported by liberals, *are* racist. And most suppression of free speech nowadays seems to be coming from the left (traditionally defined as "liberal"). So it really depends on perspective, terms, and defini
Re:Oregon hypocrisy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
>"but being conservative means "opposed to change". "
That is ONE definition of conservative. Others might be "being cautious" with change or "sticking to the Constitution" or "opposing change that reduces freedom". Example- we have RUNAWAY spending and a MASSIVE debt. A conservative would typically want to rework that existing system to reduce the debt and deficit. That obviously requires change.
>"In America the people we call conservative aren't. They're in favor of sweeping changes to social or
Re:Nice. (Score:5, Insightful)
He already is an engineer, just not licensed in OR.
The board was completely wrong on this very spiteful ruling.
Pretty sure they just didn't like to be shown up by an outsider.
I've seen this mentality in many public servant professionals;
school administrators are the worst offenders, though.
Anyway, this is a good, common sense ruling - a rare sight in this day and age!
CAP === 'pothole'
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Oregon is a budding fascist state.
The fucking mayor of Portland is best buds with Antifa. He actually thanked them for their "protests".
Re: Nice. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: Nice. (Score:5, Insightful)
So to you the AntiFa are the fascists, and the openly racist and bigoted MAGA-hat wearers waving their Nazi and Confederate flags are the good guy and the real "patriots". Go fuck yourself you anti-American piece of shit
No middle ground between the two eh? It's easy to spot the extremists, they only see in black and white with no gray. AntiFa are very much thugs and should be more seriously hunted because they actually attack people. There is a huge difference between peacefully marching, even for a cause one disagrees with such as Nazis, and attacking people. The political process can deal with Nazis as they never have much support in this country. However the method of attacking people you disagree with opens a *much* more dangerous can of worms. This is obvious quite honestly - I'm always amazed at anyone who doesn't denounce AntiFa and anyone else who practices political violence on principle.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They are thugs, they are domestic terrorists and need to be arrested on sight.
Re: Nice. (Score:5, Insightful)
The moment you accept that violence is an acceptable response to opinions is the moment that your turn evil.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It is not uncommon for certification boards to require that requirements be met (experience, testing, education) before people can lay claim to a title.
In Oregon's case they used too generic of a label, engineer when they should have specified "State certified engineer" or "Certified Traffic Engineer".
This will get pretty muddy when it moves to a higher court and all of the independent certification groups approach the court with amicus briefs supporting their ability to certify trained people to perform ce
Re: (Score:2)
You are right, but wrong when the person is talking to government about governance. That maintains the highest of free speech protection.
Re: (Score:2)
What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Protected Titles (Score:5, Insightful)
They went too far in the protection. The purpose of a licensed engineer was not to prevent people from using the word "engineer", but to provide certification for a limited set of jobs that needed a more formal designation. You don't just say "I'm an engineer" in such a position, you should say "I am an engineer licensed by the state of Oregon". Otherwise you may as well hand out $500 fines to any 6 year old pushing around a toy train who accidentally says "I'm the engineer!" It's just like the word "doctor", you can call yourself that all you want and if you're not practicing medicine or fooling people into giving you money for your medical advice.
They went to far in proactively fining a person for merely calling himself "engineer" in a context where he was not providing a professional service or engaging in a function where a licensed Professional Engineer was required.
Re: (Score:3)
They went to far in proactively fining a person for merely calling himself "engineer" in a context where he was not providing a professional service or engaging in a function where a licensed Professional Engineer was required.
This is where it gets a bit fuzzy. If he repeatedly called himself an engineer, that would imply that he felt using the title would convince people that they should follow his advice because he has the requisite knowledge and experience. I could easily see someone considering that to be providing a professional service. No state is going come after any of us just for posting on Slashdot "I'm an engineer!", just like nobody would be fined just for posting "I'm a physician!" Practicing "Professional Engineeri
Re: (Score:3)
Show that the inference is untrue. Why do you presume that he does not have the requisite knowledge? What requisite experience is required to determine that yellow light timing does not comply with a transportation agency guideline?
Re: (Score:2)
Being a professional meant you personally signed on the dotted line as responsible, like doctors and lawyers are professionals. Everyone else is a bumbler.
P.E. was akin to a doctor in that sense.