Slashdot Mirror


State Board Concedes It Violated Free Speech Rights of Oregon Man Fined For Writing 'I Am An Engineer' (oregonlive.com)

According to Oregon Live, "A state panel violated a Beaverton man's free speech rights by claiming he had unlawfully used the title 'engineer' and by fining him when he repeatedly challenged Oregon's traffic-signal timing before local media and policymakers, Oregon's attorney general has ruled." From the report: Oregon's Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying unconstitutionally applied state law governing engineering practice to Mats Jarlstrom when he exercised his free speech about traffic lights and described himself as an engineer since he was doing so "in a noncommercial'' setting and not soliciting professional business, the state Department of Justice has conceded. "We have admitted to violating Mr. Jarlstrom's rights,'' said Christina L. Beatty-Walters, senior assistant attorney general, in federal court Monday. The state's regulation of Jarlstrom under engineering practice law "was not narrowly tailored to any compelling state interests,'' she wrote in court papers. The state has pledged the board will not pursue the Beaverton man any further when he's not acting in a commercial or professional manner, and on Monday urged a federal judge to dismiss the case. The state also sent a $500 check to Jarlstrom in August, reimbursing him for the state fine.

Jarlstrom and his lawyers argued that's not good enough. They contend Jarlstrom isn't alone in getting snared by the state board's aggressive and "overbroad'' interpretation of state law. They contend others have been investigated improperly and want the court to look broader at the state law and its administrative rules and declare them unconstitutional. In the alternative, the state law should be restricted to only regulating engineering communications that are made as part of paid employment or a contractual agreement.

8 of 178 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Bad news for AGW/CC acolytes by sjames · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You should look up acceleration in the dictionary.

    A car coming towards you at 20 MPH need not accelerate to squash you.

  2. No SLAPP Argument? by mentil · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Considering the fine against him was essentially a SLAPP action, and Oregon has anti-SLAPP legislation, Mr. Jarlstrom should make the argument that an additional fine/restitution against the State Board should be applied in this case. Even if the specific legislation exempts the government, it could be argued by analogy.

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
  3. Re:Bad news for AGW/CC acolytes by mnemotronic · · Score: 1, Insightful

    You should look up acceleration in the dictionary.

    A car coming towards you at 20 MPH need not accelerate to squash you.

    Hmm E=1/2 m*v^2. Suppose m is around 1500kg 20mph=8.94 m/s I believe all the units are correct, so multiplying that out yields about 60k joules of energy Terminal velocity is around 53m/s so assuming a 62kg human you get 87k joules of energy if you just went splat from an aircraft The first would assume you were between a car and a brick wall and you received all the energy which is an extreme case At any rate I suspect the 20mph one might be survivable as long as your thrown out of the way since your only getting a fraction of the available energy It could also easily be lethal or crippling.

    Is there a moderation code for "mansplaining gone amok"?

    --
    The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
  4. Re:Why the desperation? by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why did they go to such lengths over traffic lights?

    Generally speaking? Because small-minded people in power love to push others around, just because they can. Doubly so when someone dares to calls them out on an issue within their two-bit little fiefdom.

    --
    Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
  5. Re:Mats Jarlstrom may have won the case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why? He didn't lie and he didn't claim to have any expertise he didn't have, so it would be rather inappropriate to refer to him as such.

  6. Re:Streisand Effect by 6Yankee · · Score: 4, Insightful

    He's not an "engineer" by their definition, but I bet the asshats that pursued this wouldn't hesitate to label themselves as "public servants"...

  7. Re:Streisand Effect by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 3, Insightful

    license is a good to make sure you have the basic skills ...

    That is not really saying a lot.

    ... to do such a job safely.

    Basic skills and Safely aren't really in the same ballpark IMHO.

    I happen to know people who should be "engineers" but don't have the piece of paper to say they are, as well as people that have the piece of paper, that really shouldn't. Piece of paper is just a barrier to entry and doesn't indicate any real competency.

    Once you realize that, you look beyond the paper for actual experience and proof of skill, which is what you should be doing regardless of the piece of paper requirement by the state.

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  8. Re:Streisand Effect by CaptainDork · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Those "exceptions," you mention are not, "free speech." Like making money pretending to be an engineer, those are simply, "illegal."

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.