3 ms·
We need to design better due process for fines. Privacy may be part of the problem -- yes it would suck to publicize everyone's whole history of administrative
by awinter-py 10y ago
We need to design better due process for fines.
Privacy may be part of the problem -- yes it would suck to publicize everyone's whole history of administrative fines, but making this information public by default would limit corrupt application of the rules.
- coupdejarnac 10y agoAs far as I know, all disciplinary actions for state-regulated licenses are public information.
- anigbrowl 10y agoWhat's wrong with this? The Board asked him to stop calling himself an engineer, without any fines, and he agreed. He broke the agreement, repeatedly, at which point they launched an investigation and then slapped him with a very small fine. I see absolutely zero evidence of corruption here. It seems a lot of readers are only looking at matters from Jarlstrom's side, and completely ignoring the fact of his bad faith.
- awinter-py 10y agoyou're not exactly wrong. In my opinion this is a first amendment case. The supreme court created something called 'strict scrutiny' to analyze cases where other laws encroach on the first amendment. Under strict scrutiny, the government needs to prove a compelling state interest to restrict free speech. Does the state of oregon have a compelling interest in preventing this person from informing a state agency, via private correspondence, of a safety-related calibration issue in their traffic light system? If you think so, interested to hear your argument.