Slashdot Mirror
Oregon Unconstitutionally Fined a Man $500 for Saying 'I am an Engineer,' Federal Judge Rules (vice.com)
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.
That's nothing, the guy at Subway who made my sandwich had the balls to call himself an "artist".
Minesweeper Certified Solitaire Engineer.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
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.
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.
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".
Violation of the constitution gives him the right to sue the board ... hope he fucks them without lube.
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...
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.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
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."
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
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.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
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.
>"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?
Oregon is a budding fascist state.
The fucking mayor of Portland is best buds with Antifa. He actually thanked them for their "protests".
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 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"
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.
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 benefit.
Oddly the vast apparent majority of those who refer to themselves as "conservatives" tend to want to make radical changes and reforms.
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.
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.
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.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
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.
The only "slimy" people were the people setting up the red light cameras with too-short yellow-light intervals, thus maximizing the possibility of extracting a fine from innocent drivers, as well as increasing the risk of a rear-end accident. In a just world, they'd be flogged to death in public.
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 certain jobs.
>"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 definitions. And on that topic, what used to be "liberal" in the USA is barely recognizable- it has fractured in some wild ways that don't at all resemble classic liberalism (things like identity politics, so-called "hate speech", and "equal outcomes"). Of course, that has happened with what used to be "conservative" also... although considerably less.
>"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 benefit."
Right back to my point about terms. Now you are throwing in "progressive". I could just as easily describe progressive as just wanting change for change's sake and conservative as not wanting to make changes that remove liberty or try to force "equal outcomes". That doesn't quite fit, either.
>"The opposite on this axis is an authoritarian."
And yet authoritarianism is not conservativism.
>"Oddly the vast apparent majority of those who refer to themselves as "conservatives" tend to want to make radical changes and reforms."
And perhaps some of those changes they want to make are to revert things back to a more conservative state with regards to fiscal responsibility, for example?
What I was saying in my first reply is that ascribing blanket terms like "racism" to conservatives is not only factually incorrect and very poor form, but it is exactly the type of hyper-polarization and demonization, being fueled by the mass-media, that is causing such conflict and misunderstanding. Half the country is not racist and intolerant. And, on that same level, the other half of the country is not fiscally irresponsible and anti-constitutional.
Plus, very few people fit neatly on a single dot on one, linear scale. This is precisely why I think our two-party system is so hopelessly out of touch with what we want and need.... as if there are only two ways to address a problem, or only two sides to any complex issue.
Sorry, you have to get out of the blue cities for a while. While you can find racism in red America, that's true, you find it equally or even more so in blue America. It's hardly universal.
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.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
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.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
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 Engineering" or medicine without being licensed will almost always get you into trouble, though.
The question is, did Jarlstrom cross the line from mere speech to practicing. I don't think it's unreasonable to argue either side.
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.
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'
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?
Yes... nice job following along with the class. The mask wearing thugs disrupting civil society with violence and hysteria are fascists and the people wearing red hats that you fascists hate so much are just good ol fashioned Americans.
The board asked him to stop because he kept messaging different people within the organization. So people tracking his pattern of behavior knew, but individuals he kept presenting himself as an engineer to did not.
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 ambiguous credentials to see if someone would acknowledge him. Which is why he has become such a poster child to those who feel slighted when professions do not take them as one of them.
If he had tried to do the same thing to the judge, the person would have come down pretty hard on him. Judges take personation of a BAR certified lawyer very seriously. But since he was only upsetting engineers, the judge didn't care.
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.
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.
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?
I could not, since by definition professional services must be provided to the public, which is categorically different than petitioning a governmental body to address an issue.
Well, I do. But then again I'm an attorney actually licensed to provide opinions on such matters, and you'd apparently argue that it's not unreasonable to accuse you of engaging in the practice of law without a license (hint: it's not; you're not providing a service, you're merely spouting off).
I've studied and operated as a professional computer scientist and electronics engineer with a degree and dozens of certifications (generic and vendor specific) for decades.
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.
If you believe that I have some tropical beach front property in North Dakota to sell you. There is ample evidence on YouTube alone of Antifa initiating violence with anyone they disagree with, think they disagree with, or who just happens to be walking by.
They are thugs, they are domestic terrorists and need to be arrested on sight.
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 much relegated to being an assistant to a PE in many fields of engineering.
Most state boards of engineering have requirements for obtaining a PE such as passing tests and maintaining continuing education throughout certification. I can't speak to Oregon specifically, but for me, I had to pass a Fundamentals of Engineering exam, work 5 years under a PE, and then pass another Professional Engineering exam in order to get registered as a PE. I now have to complete several continuing education credits every 2 years to renew my license. I do agree that the process costs money and probably more than it should and it doesn't have nearly as much oversight as it probably should. But the big differentiation between a PE and a non PE is that PEs are personally criminally liable for failure of designs they have stamped.
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
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...
You can find links to the rest here. It includes a letter of him writing that he is an "electronics engineer" from Sweden and states why his experience is relevant, but at no point states he's licensed. Show me in these documents where they confuse him for a PE at any point in the conversation.
https://motherboard.vice.com/e...
The moment you accept that violence is an acceptable response to opinions is the moment that your turn evil.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
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.
~Any apparent grammatical or typographic errors are caused by defects in your display device.
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.
In NH I had to change my corporate identity when I moved there from Michigan because the word "Engineering" was in the company name, and NH said I needed an electrical (not electronic) power engineer or civil engineer / architect to be in the leadership of the company. A Computer Science / Electronics engineer didn't qualify.
- Tjp
I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!
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.