4 ms·

It's not just some organization, there is a law in california. https://www.bpelsg.ca.gov/laws/pe_act.pdf https://www.bpelsg.ca.gov/laws/pe_act.pdf If you don'

It's not just some organization, there is a law in california. https://www.bpelsg.ca.gov/laws/pe_act.pdf https://www.bpelsg.ca.gov/laws/pe_act.pdf If you don't like the law, complain to your local state legislator. For me, it didn't affect my ability to do my job or get employed, so I never cared about it. I supposed they could change the name to "licensed engineer. It doesn't bother me that the person designing roads, buildings or electrical distribution systems has to be licensed. My wife has a friend (Civil Engineer, PE) and it seems like all she does is review/approve stuff done by architects.

seiferteric 5y ago
That's kind of the point of the whole conversation. You can't have a law that restricts what one can call yourself that does not violate the 1st amendment. Certainly you can require one to have a certificate to do certain kinds of work however.
- mcshicks 5y ago
  I'm not a lawyer, but I'm assuming whoever wrote the act at least reviewed it with one. Here is a snippet what is says. 6787. Acts constituting a misdemeanor ... (h) Use the title, or any combination of that title, of “professional engineer,” “licensed engineer,” “registered engineer,” or the branch titles specified in Section 6732, or the authority titles specified in Sections 6736 and 6736.1, or “engineer-in-training,” or use any abbreviation of such title that might lead to the belief that the person is a licensed engineer, is authorized to use the titles specified in Section 6736 or 6736.1, or holds a certificate as an engineer-in-training, without being licensed, authorized, or certified as required by this chapter. So it seems like we do have a law (at least in California) that say something like that.
  - seiferteric 5y ago
    You would be surprised to learn then that California has many unconstitutional laws on the books.
    - mcshicks 5y ago
      In this specific case is it the law that's restricting his speech, or the licensing's boards actions? I'm not necessarily taking an opinion on the actual merits of the case in the article, if anything I does sound like they are infringing on his right to free speech. But that doesn't necessarily mean the law is unconstitutional. It's easy to say something is or is not constitutional, but the end of the day we have courts to decide these questions. If I still disagree I feel strongly about it I need to contact somebody who can actually change it. Am I really going to make my beliefs about what is or isn't constitutional based on some comment posted on the internet?

seiferteric 5y ago

That's kind of the point of the whole conversation. You can't have a law that restricts what one can call yourself that does not violate the 1st amendment. Certainly you can require one to have a certificate to do certain kinds of work however.

mcshicks 5y ago
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm assuming whoever wrote the act at least reviewed it with one. Here is a snippet what is says. 6787. Acts constituting a misdemeanor ... (h) Use the title, or any combination of that title, of “professional engineer,” “licensed engineer,” “registered engineer,” or the branch titles specified in Section 6732, or the authority titles specified in Sections 6736 and 6736.1, or “engineer-in-training,” or use any abbreviation of such title that might lead to the belief that the person is a licensed engineer, is authorized to use the titles specified in Section 6736 or 6736.1, or holds a certificate as an engineer-in-training, without being licensed, authorized, or certified as required by this chapter. So it seems like we do have a law (at least in California) that say something like that.
- seiferteric 5y ago
  You would be surprised to learn then that California has many unconstitutional laws on the books.
  - mcshicks 5y ago
    In this specific case is it the law that's restricting his speech, or the licensing's boards actions? I'm not necessarily taking an opinion on the actual merits of the case in the article, if anything I does sound like they are infringing on his right to free speech. But that doesn't necessarily mean the law is unconstitutional. It's easy to say something is or is not constitutional, but the end of the day we have courts to decide these questions. If I still disagree I feel strongly about it I need to contact somebody who can actually change it. Am I really going to make my beliefs about what is or isn't constitutional based on some comment posted on the internet?