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.

Comments

Re:Why the desperation?

[sjames]

They want lots of lovely ticket revenue and he demonstrated mathematically that they had rigged the lights such that it was not always possible to obey the light even while driving lawfully. That would cut into that ticket revenue and could even cause them to have to give some back.

People were hearing his message and starting to raise a fuss about it so they acted in haste to shut him up. Now they're going to be educated in the Streisand effect.

Hmm...

[BronsCon]

I wonder if the handful of morons who keep crying about how I'm such a liar and can never admit when I'm wrong will own up to the fact that I was right about this when it first came up a few months back. You know, with the facts and honest opinion I posted.

In other words, will the idiots stop spreading lies and admit they were wrong? You know, the things they insist I can't do, despite the frequency with which I back up my posts with actual references, come back to post corrections when I learn new information, and thank those who point me in the right direction when I'm wrong.

Will they? Huh? Will they be able to admit they were wrong?

Yes, I know this is off topic and I'm prepared to face the downmods. I just had to call out UnknowingFool, Zero__Kelvin, zifn4b, and the rest of that crew. If I'm expected to admit when I'm wrong (and I do when it happens), I expect the same from them and, well, after the dicking they've been giving me for the past few months, I deserve to gloat once.

In your face, assholes.

Re:One thing is clear

[Zmobie]

I'll admit I was fairly certain they were indeed allowed to fine him when I first read about. I thought it was heavy handed originally though still legal, but I'll eat my humble pie and be rather surprised that the ruling went in his favor. I guess technically speaking he wasn't doing it in a commercial capacity so these laws don't apply. Not sure I agree with them going after anything beyond a review of some of the fines they may have incorrectly levied against individuals under the same circumstance, but we will see how far they take it.

This Happened to Me

[lazarus]

Many years ago I started a small software "engineering" shop with about a half dozen "engineers" (we used to call them that a lot more back then). Naturally, I thought it was a good idea to have "engineering" in the name of the company.

This was fine for quite a while as we never advertised and we certainly would never have even dreamed of passing ourselves off as some kind of structural or electrical engineering company. Then one day I added another phone line to the office and the local telephone company (without my knowledge) put a "free" yellow pages "ad" in their listing for the company...

The Association of Professional Engineers called me... They were good about it, but quite firm that I was absolutely not to do business under that name anymore unless I wanted to be sued out of existence. I changed the name at my inconvenience and expense. For good measure, I also changed my phone numbers.

I honestly had no idea that there was a group of people (with a lot of lawyers) who had a claim over a word in the English language. I still think it's wrong.