7 ms·

Everyone's talking about the title issue, but it's amazing that the Oregon board doesn't believe he should be able to publish or present his ideas. You can go o

by patorjk 10y ago

Everyone's talking about the title issue, but it's amazing that the Oregon board doesn't believe he should be able to publish or present his ideas. You can go on and on about what it means to be a certain title, but the man should be able to put forth his work and ideas.

mannykannot 10y ago
Turning the issue into a clear 1st. amendment case just goes to show how smart the board is.
anigbrowl 10y ago
But they don't. He's perfectly at liberty to do so, but not to assert professional standing which he lacks in order to make it seem more convincing. Did you read the Board's complaint? At first the asked the Board to investigate the city even though the Board had no jurisdiction to do so. they advised him of this and also cautioned him not to advertise himself as an engineer, in accordance with Oregon's code. He agreed, but then went on to write to various government and media entities promoting his idea and promoting himself as an engineer, before asserting again to the Board that he was an engineer - the very same Board to whom he had given his assurance that he would not hold himself out as such. He could have put the exact same information and proposals out in public, saying 'I'm not an engineer, but I believe I have come up with a great solution to this traffic problem' and he would have been fine. It's simply not true for you to assert that they're trying to censor his ideas.
- JBReefer 10y ago
  Look, you're not wrong. But you have to remember that none of that matters, because I can put the following notice out, and any government prohibition of such is a big payday for me: "I, JB Reefer, am God, command you to stop driving. I am the king of all engineers, president of space, etc etc etc" and it doesn't matter. You really do get to say whatever the fuck you want in this country, as long as it doesn't cause direct harm to someone else. There's no "this doesn't apply to job title" caveat.
  - monochromatic 10y ago
    > You really do get to say whatever the fuck you want in this country, as long as it doesn't cause direct harm to someone else The Supreme Court disagrees.
    - JBReefer 10y ago
      Can you cite a case? Hate speech etc has a long history of being court-supported.
      - foobarchu 10y ago
        That's because prohibiting hate speech would be nothing but suppression of speech. If you use hate speech to incite a riot, that is a crime. Simply saying it is not. Similarly, simply saying "i am an engineer" is obviously not a crime. Students do it all the time, despite not being licensed. Using it to lend credence to your ideas around traffic lights, however, may be a different story. I think thats the crux of the dispute.
    - nxc18 10y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words for example. There are more limitations but that's an easy and possibly counterintuitive example.
      - JBReefer 10y ago
        That and the Shouting Fire thing are both directly harmful. Calling yourself an engineer, not a PE, without a a PE is not directly harmful, and the Constitution overrides state laws that claim otherwise. My money is on him in this one.
        wl 10y ago
        "Shouting fire" is a reference to Schenck v. US which has been overturned. It applied the "clear and present danger" standard. The current standard is "incitement to imminent lawless action" as articulated in Brandenburg v. Ohio.
- echion 10y ago
  > He's perfectly at liberty to [share the information] No, he's not according to the violations cited in Final Order, page 6, section heading #14; in particular: By reviewing, critiquing, and altering an engineered ITE formula, and submitting the critique and calculations [...] to members of the public for consideration and modification of Beaverton, Oregon's and worldwide traffic signals, which signals are public equipment, processes and works, Jarlstrom applied special knowledge of the mathematical, physical and engineering sciences to such creative work as investigation, evaluation, and design in connection with public equipment, processes, and works. Jarlstrom thereby engaged in the practice of engineering under ORS 672.005(1)(b). ...and summarizing: By engaging the practice of engineering [...] without registration, Jarlstrom violated [laws]. [...] By again providing the public with his traffic engineering calculations for the modification of Beaverton's traffic signal timing, Jarlstrom again engaged in the practice of engineering and, specifically, the practice of traffic engineering. He thereby violated [laws] on a third occasion. By providing his publicly released traffic engineering calculations to the sheriff of the 20 county where he advised changes in traffic signals, Jarlstrom again purported to be authorized to engage in, and did engage in, the practice of engineering. He, therefore, violated [laws] on third and fourth occasions.
  - anigbrowl 10y ago
    Yes but he wouldn't be engaging in the practice of engineering if he were to disclaim the title of engineer. Of course, if Jarlstrom were to disavow being a licensed engineer, he might not have garnered as much as interest for his proposals as he did by implying he possessed the relevant credential.
    - echion 10y ago
      He clearly would. Just doing the things is deemed "engineering", even if he called it "monading".
      - rmxt 10y ago
        Using the title "engineer" in conjunction with "submitting the critique and calculations [...] to members of the public for consideration and modification [...] of traffic signals", I believe, is the critical part here. If he had merely submitted the "critique and calculations" for "consideration" as a concerned citizen, he would have not gotten a fine. Simply put, he called himself an engineer and suggested that public infrastructure be changed. In Oregon, when you're not licensed by the state, you can't use the title "Engineer", and you definitely don't want to use it while trying to suggest modifications to public infrastructure. I'm not equating the two in terms of "I believe both situations are completely just"... but doing what he did is akin to a thief walking himself into the police station. The purpose of the Board of Engineers in most states is not to decide what is "good engineering practice" and what is "bad engineering practice", it's to regulate licensure and set the bar for who is qualified to be an "Engineer" in the eyes of the state. He mis-navigated the American system, for better or worse, and paid a fine that is meant to dissuade people from doing things like this: http://laist.com/2016/01/30/fake_civil_engineers_may_have_built.php http://laist.com/2016/01/30/fake_civil_engineers_may_have_bu...
- chrismcb 10y ago
  Except the board has no standing to tell him what he can call himself. Just because they don't want him to use the title doesn't mean they can bend their own laws
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
tn135 10y ago
True. Just because Oregon board has a narrow view of what the word 'engineer' means I do not think this gentleman should be harassed this way. I find this immoral. Another instance I can recount is here where a woman was banned from touching horses. http://reason.com/blog/2017/02/17/woman-could-go-to-jail-for-horse-massage http://reason.com/blog/2017/02/17/woman-could-go-to-jail-for...
- EpicEng 10y ago
  He was previously warned, he accepted the warning and promised not to do it again... and then he of course did it again. What's your moral concern exactly?
  - tn135 10y ago
    My moral concern is some "board" gets to become the sole arbitrator of who is an "engineer". Ideally the board's warning must have been thrown into dustbin.
    - EpicEng 9y ago
      Why exactly? Are engineers somehow special? What about RN's, and architects, and home inspectors? All licensed positions. I could list a thousand different role which require licensing because a mistake in their field has serious repercussions, especially regarding safety. I don't think most software devs should require licensing, but they're not doing what I and many others would consider 'real' engineering. At least, their mistakes don't often have serious impact on people. We're not talking about that here though, we're talking about civil engineering.
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  Jarlstrom isn't being harassed and the woman in Tennessee has not been banned from touching horses. Exaggeration never, ever makes a legal argument more convincing.

by patorjk 10y ago

mannykannot 10y ago

Turning the issue into a clear 1st. amendment case just goes to show how smart the board is.

anigbrowl 10y ago

But they don't. He's perfectly at liberty to do so, but not to assert professional standing which he lacks in order to make it seem more convincing. Did you read the Board's complaint? At first the asked the Board to investigate the city even though the Board had no jurisdiction to do so. they advised him of this and also cautioned him not to advertise himself as an engineer, in accordance with Oregon's code. He agreed, but then went on to write to various government and media entities promoting his idea and promoting himself as an engineer, before asserting again to the Board that he was an engineer - the very same Board to whom he had given his assurance that he would not hold himself out as such. He could have put the exact same information and proposals out in public, saying 'I'm not an engineer, but I believe I have come up with a great solution to this traffic problem' and he would have been fine. It's simply not true for you to assert that they're trying to censor his ideas.

JBReefer 10y ago
Look, you're not wrong. But you have to remember that none of that matters, because I can put the following notice out, and any government prohibition of such is a big payday for me: "I, JB Reefer, am God, command you to stop driving. I am the king of all engineers, president of space, etc etc etc" and it doesn't matter. You really do get to say whatever the fuck you want in this country, as long as it doesn't cause direct harm to someone else. There's no "this doesn't apply to job title" caveat.
- monochromatic 10y ago
  > You really do get to say whatever the fuck you want in this country, as long as it doesn't cause direct harm to someone else The Supreme Court disagrees.
  - JBReefer 10y ago
    Can you cite a case? Hate speech etc has a long history of being court-supported.
    - foobarchu 10y ago
      That's because prohibiting hate speech would be nothing but suppression of speech. If you use hate speech to incite a riot, that is a crime. Simply saying it is not. Similarly, simply saying "i am an engineer" is obviously not a crime. Students do it all the time, despite not being licensed. Using it to lend credence to your ideas around traffic lights, however, may be a different story. I think thats the crux of the dispute.
  - nxc18 10y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words for example. There are more limitations but that's an easy and possibly counterintuitive example.
    - JBReefer 10y ago
      That and the Shouting Fire thing are both directly harmful. Calling yourself an engineer, not a PE, without a a PE is not directly harmful, and the Constitution overrides state laws that claim otherwise. My money is on him in this one.
      - wl 10y ago
        "Shouting fire" is a reference to Schenck v. US which has been overturned. It applied the "clear and present danger" standard. The current standard is "incitement to imminent lawless action" as articulated in Brandenburg v. Ohio.
echion 10y ago
> He's perfectly at liberty to [share the information] No, he's not according to the violations cited in Final Order, page 6, section heading #14; in particular: By reviewing, critiquing, and altering an engineered ITE formula, and submitting the critique and calculations [...] to members of the public for consideration and modification of Beaverton, Oregon's and worldwide traffic signals, which signals are public equipment, processes and works, Jarlstrom applied special knowledge of the mathematical, physical and engineering sciences to such creative work as investigation, evaluation, and design in connection with public equipment, processes, and works. Jarlstrom thereby engaged in the practice of engineering under ORS 672.005(1)(b). ...and summarizing: By engaging the practice of engineering [...] without registration, Jarlstrom violated [laws]. [...] By again providing the public with his traffic engineering calculations for the modification of Beaverton's traffic signal timing, Jarlstrom again engaged in the practice of engineering and, specifically, the practice of traffic engineering. He thereby violated [laws] on a third occasion. By providing his publicly released traffic engineering calculations to the sheriff of the 20 county where he advised changes in traffic signals, Jarlstrom again purported to be authorized to engage in, and did engage in, the practice of engineering. He, therefore, violated [laws] on third and fourth occasions.
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  Yes but he wouldn't be engaging in the practice of engineering if he were to disclaim the title of engineer. Of course, if Jarlstrom were to disavow being a licensed engineer, he might not have garnered as much as interest for his proposals as he did by implying he possessed the relevant credential.
  - echion 10y ago
    He clearly would. Just doing the things is deemed "engineering", even if he called it "monading".
    - rmxt 10y ago
      Using the title "engineer" in conjunction with "submitting the critique and calculations [...] to members of the public for consideration and modification [...] of traffic signals", I believe, is the critical part here. If he had merely submitted the "critique and calculations" for "consideration" as a concerned citizen, he would have not gotten a fine. Simply put, he called himself an engineer and suggested that public infrastructure be changed. In Oregon, when you're not licensed by the state, you can't use the title "Engineer", and you definitely don't want to use it while trying to suggest modifications to public infrastructure. I'm not equating the two in terms of "I believe both situations are completely just"... but doing what he did is akin to a thief walking himself into the police station. The purpose of the Board of Engineers in most states is not to decide what is "good engineering practice" and what is "bad engineering practice", it's to regulate licensure and set the bar for who is qualified to be an "Engineer" in the eyes of the state. He mis-navigated the American system, for better or worse, and paid a fine that is meant to dissuade people from doing things like this: http://laist.com/2016/01/30/fake_civil_engineers_may_have_built.php http://laist.com/2016/01/30/fake_civil_engineers_may_have_bu...
chrismcb 10y ago
Except the board has no standing to tell him what he can call himself. Just because they don't want him to use the title doesn't mean they can bend their own laws

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

tn135 10y ago

True. Just because Oregon board has a narrow view of what the word 'engineer' means I do not think this gentleman should be harassed this way. I find this immoral. Another instance I can recount is here where a woman was banned from touching horses. http://reason.com/blog/2017/02/17/woman-could-go-to-jail-for-horse-massage http://reason.com/blog/2017/02/17/woman-could-go-to-jail-for...

EpicEng 10y ago
He was previously warned, he accepted the warning and promised not to do it again... and then he of course did it again. What's your moral concern exactly?
- tn135 10y ago
  My moral concern is some "board" gets to become the sole arbitrator of who is an "engineer". Ideally the board's warning must have been thrown into dustbin.
  - EpicEng 9y ago
    Why exactly? Are engineers somehow special? What about RN's, and architects, and home inspectors? All licensed positions. I could list a thousand different role which require licensing because a mistake in their field has serious repercussions, especially regarding safety. I don't think most software devs should require licensing, but they're not doing what I and many others would consider 'real' engineering. At least, their mistakes don't often have serious impact on people. We're not talking about that here though, we're talking about civil engineering.
anigbrowl 10y ago
Jarlstrom isn't being harassed and the woman in Tennessee has not been banned from touching horses. Exaggeration never, ever makes a legal argument more convincing.