3 ms·

> When Järlström brought the issue to the Oregon State Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying, [they] fined him $500 [...] for practicing enginee

> When Järlström brought the issue to the Oregon State Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying, [they] fined him $500 [...] for practicing engineering without a professional license. Wow, as described this is outrageous. It's not like he was out there changing the lights himself. He made a proposal. I guess that's why he won the court case, although I think that might go too far as well: requiring licenses for engineers makes sense. It should be required for actually implementing changes, though, not just talking about them.

magduf 7y ago
>requiring licenses for engineers makes sense. It should be required for actually implementing changes, though, not just talking about them. In civil engineering, some engineer on the project (usually the head engineer) has to be licensed, and has to sign off on it, and this makes him liable if the engineering is faulty. What happened in this guy's case is simply that, in his letter, he called himself "an engineer", and the state board slapped a fine on him for the audacity of calling himself an engineer without a PE license. He wasn't "practicing", he was making a proposal in the form of a letter. It's good that he got it reverse and free speech won, but look at what he had to do to accomplish that. The state board should be forced to pay him an enormous fine for attempting to restrict his free speech.
stuart78 7y ago
Oregon (and New Jersey) restricts gas pumping to station attendants as well. Not saying these things are related, not saying they are not.
kayfox 7y ago
They did not fine him right off the bat, there was some back and forth where, possibly because of a language issue, they got the impression that he was asserting himself as a licensed engineer. That's bad in nearly every jurisdiction in most places in the world.
- wool_gather 7y ago
  Thanks. This would have been a good detail for the article author to include. Do you have a link to a better description of the dispute?
shawnz 7y ago
Would it be okay for someone to casually propose medical interventions while claiming they're a doctor, when really they aren't?

magduf 7y ago

>requiring licenses for engineers makes sense. It should be required for actually implementing changes, though, not just talking about them. In civil engineering, some engineer on the project (usually the head engineer) has to be licensed, and has to sign off on it, and this makes him liable if the engineering is faulty. What happened in this guy's case is simply that, in his letter, he called himself "an engineer", and the state board slapped a fine on him for the audacity of calling himself an engineer without a PE license. He wasn't "practicing", he was making a proposal in the form of a letter. It's good that he got it reverse and free speech won, but look at what he had to do to accomplish that. The state board should be forced to pay him an enormous fine for attempting to restrict his free speech.

stuart78 7y ago

Oregon (and New Jersey) restricts gas pumping to station attendants as well. Not saying these things are related, not saying they are not.

kayfox 7y ago

They did not fine him right off the bat, there was some back and forth where, possibly because of a language issue, they got the impression that he was asserting himself as a licensed engineer. That's bad in nearly every jurisdiction in most places in the world.

wool_gather 7y ago
Thanks. This would have been a good detail for the article author to include. Do you have a link to a better description of the dispute?

shawnz 7y ago

Would it be okay for someone to casually propose medical interventions while claiming they're a doctor, when really they aren't?