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.
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.
Ok, so who's getting fired?
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Maybe this guy won his case, but it's pretty damn clear now that he is not an engineer.
Doh, okay, it's abundantly clear I didn't read the article. He is in fact an (electrical) engineer, just not one who is licensed to practice in the state of Oregon. Sorry.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
To all those on Slashdot who defended the Oregon Board of Examiners (and there were a few of you that did), this would be a very good time for you to sit down and have this here warm cup of STFU.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
He is Mats Järlström from Sweden, earned a degree in electrical engineering from Sweden’s Ebersteinska gymnasium in 1980.
The crucial part of it is the way the law was written allowed overly broad abuse against anyone who called themselves an engineer while not registered in Oregon even if they are engineers.
The application of this law in this case is suspect because the lights generate revenue and his correction of a 1959 mathematical formula (which treats yellow lights as red lights) would have decreased revenue.
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.
I'm an EE. I looked into getting a license a few times, but nothing was relevant to the work that I do. The test seemed to cover things like electrical codes, power distribution networks and safety. Engineering is a wide field, the sample tests did not even touch on verilog, vhdl quantum mechanical or device geometry.
Except that he very clearly stated what his expertise was and does, in fact, hold the degrees he claims to hold. He phrased the traffic issue in terms of his expertise as "an expert in motional feedback (displacement, velocity and acceleration feedback) of powered speakers which includes the full understanding of motion of an object such as a loudspeaker cone (or a vehicle stopping or traveling through an intersection as in ORS811.260(4))"; he, then, provided an analysis of the issue framed by that expertise.
And his analysis was correct, so you can hardly say he doesn't have the expertise he claims.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.