General > General Technical Chat
Man fined for criticizing govt using science, without a license
T3sl4co1l:
--- Quote from: Howardlong on January 07, 2019, 11:10:56 am ---Furthermore, I’d have hoped that, retired or not, having an engineering degree would be enough for any court to be persuaded that your are, indeed, an engineer.
--- End quote ---
That ignores the legal definition of "engineer", if any.
Most states do not have such, and therefore calling oneself an "engineer" (without further qualification) is free game, but equally so: legally meaningless. A "professional engineer" however must be registered with the organization responsible for granting that title.
In this case, it seems the city was correct, under law, to make their case, as the law held a legal definition of the term "engineer". The law however was found unconstitutional, and therefore any argument based upon it also fails.
Tim
metrologist:
Tim, do you know what specifically is different about a state that "constitutionally" defines/qualifies a "professional engineer" and Oregon that "unconstitutionally" defines/qualifies "engineer"?
IOW, what if Mats mentioned he is a professional engineer in a state that defines such?
T3sl4co1l:
No, I don't know what exactly applies. I imagine the structure is different between states, so you'd have to know each state's laws in depth to know exactly how it works.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_and_licensure_in_engineering#United_States
This implies that it's legislative, at some point or another, in most or all states.
In this case, the difference seems to be they legislated (or the city thought this was the case) the unqualified term, without realizing such is unconstitutional. Whereas the qualified term "professional engineer" is a constitutionally sound exception to the 1st Amendment, and is usually used everywhere else.
If he had mentioned he was a PE, and wasn't, he'd be liable for that, possibly a criminal misrepresentation (and a court would likely support such conclusion). If he did, and was, who knows; they might've found some other excuse to shoot back with. The worst possible outcome, for the city (in their eyes), would've been to have to admit that a citizen is right about their shitty behavior. ;)
Tim
Richard Crowley:
--- Quote ---“In candid moments, the board even asserted that they could punish the hundreds of Intel employees who call themselves 'engineers' without having a board-issued license,” said a spokesperson for IJ.
https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2017/12/state_board_concedes_it_violat.html
--- End quote ---
Intel is the largest employer in the state of Oregon. And Oregon is Intel's largest site. Intel is likely one of the (or perhaps THE) major source of tax income to the state. But the people on the board are apparently independent enough to discount such trivia.
You may want to examine your computer to see if it is powered by a CPU chip that was designed by engineers not licensed by Oregon.
metrologist:
--- Quote from: T3sl4co1l on January 07, 2019, 05:14:44 pm ---...the unqualified term...
Tim
--- End quote ---
If this is the distinction, then who is authorized to identify what is qualified and what isn't? I am an internet jockey, I am a professional internet jockey. I should use relevant terms, such as technician or professional technician. Where can I peruse the list of "qualified" terms? This must be on a federal level if we are talking constitutionality. Is there something in law that is more specific to generally stigmatize the use of such a qualifier? Silly me I am looking for logic and consistency in law.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version