>requiring licenses for engineers makes sense. It should be required for actually implementing changes, though, not just talking about them. In civil engineeri

>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.