32 ms·

North Carolina tells retired engineer he can't talk about engineering

489 points by tomohawk 5y ago

morelisp 5y ago
It's not clear from the complaint if he's being threatened with legal action because he's voiced his opinion, or because he prepared testimony as an expert witness concerning engineering in a trial. Given that the case cites numerous times he gave his opinion in "public and quasi-judicial" fora without mentioning reprimand, it seems like it's the latter. That's doesn't sound like a first amendment violation. Truth is not the only bar to clear in legal testimony.
- brudgers 5y ago
  Public hearings for real estate development approval are commonly quasi-judicial. It would be unsurprising if that was the context because it is a context in which other participants would have concerns over unqualified persons holding themselves out as experts. It is also a context in which it is easy to collect evidence. It is worth distinguishing that engineers are regulated because their opinions carry legal weight. They carry legal weight because the truth is difficult to determine and even experts (i.e engineers) can’t readily determine it absolutely (hence safety factors). The safety valve for engineering opinion’s weight is engineers are personally liable for errors in judgment (no corporate protection).
- Closi 5y ago
  I don’t see why someone needs to be licensed to provide expert opinion (even in court). It’s just the job of the other side to discredit the expert witness. Engineering licences are really meant to protect unqualified people making bad designs which get made and produce safety/quality issues - their purpose isn’t to work out who should be able to say what. They are about making sure something physical gets built correctly according to code. The idea that someone could see a safety issue related to the engineering of something and wouldn’t be able to raise it (in either a casual or legal setting) because they don’t have a licence is clearly absurd.
  - staticman2 5y ago
    The obvious reason you might want him to have a license to speak in court is if he's blatently lying in court about engineering you can revoke the license after a legal proceeding and no longer have a paid liar as a tool for attorneys to hire to decieve the judge and jury.
    - gopiandcode 5y ago
      If the expert witness were lying, wouldn't that be perjury, and doesn't that come with its own legal repercussions?
      - staticman2 5y ago
        Sure, in theory lying can have legal consequences, but only if you can prove the person is intentionally lying. To take away the license you'd only have to prove they are stating things no qualified engineer would say. Suppose, for example, an engineer testified that bricks should never be used in housing because in his professional opinion bricks cause cancer. His source is a blog post as reliable as a supermarket tabloid. How do you prove he's intentionally lying, rather than just insane or confused or stupid? By making it a license issue instead, you at least move the goal as to whether his statements meet some minimum standard of professional expectations or care. This is all just hypothetical, in practice I don't know to what extent these license authorities are supervising engineers. But ideally I'd like an engineer to at least have some pressure to remain honest when they testify in court.
roenxi 5y ago
No opinion on whether this is a new development or not, but needing a license to talk about engineering is really stupid. By far the majority of engineering work is stating the obvious. Even a novice with some calculus background could probably come to the right answer if they had access to the necessary data. Maybe they'd need a little help warming up. Engineers are just more reliable at getting to the obvious answer, and have made enough mistakes that they double check their calculations. Licensing laws used against people are more likely to be used for political cover rather than to protect the public.
- cesaref 5y ago
  It would make learning to be an engineer pretty difficult, if you can't talk about stuff until you are qualified!
- blfr 5y ago
  Needing a license to talk about anything is really stupid. We have seen credentialed experts trip time and again, succumb to industry pressure, form outright lobbies hostile to public interest. While there is some value in credentials for quick judgements and floor requirements, there is never an honest reason to bar someone from giving their opinion or testifying. Everyone is always free to not listen or disregard that opinion.
- taneq 5y ago
  It depends very much on precisely what you're talking about. Someone giving an opinion on a physical system? Absolutely should not be regulated. Someone giving engineering advice and representing that advice as the result of rigorous analysis and themselves as an authority on the topic? I can see an argument for regulating that. We place similar expectations on legal and medical advice, and wrong engineering advice is arguably more dangerous than both. (For values of 'engineering' involving 'building heavy machinery, physical infrastructure, etc. which lives depend on - a wrong diagnoses can kill one person, a bad load calc can potentially kill thousands if a stadium collapses. I don't mean giving advice on page layout in CSS needs to be regulated.) Edit: Note that I'm not saying he should be gagged, and the circumstances definitely need to be considered, just that I understand the reasoning behind standards for advice presented as authoritative. What's going on in TFA more smacks of union protectionism than genuine caution.
eru 5y ago
I remember discussions here on HN where people were looking forward to regulating software engineering.
- PaulHoule 5y ago
  That’s one thing. Criminal charges for expressing your opinion is another. An airplane pilot is licensed and will talk trash w/ people about flying and not get in trouble unless they express an opinion like ‘i love to drink a six pack before I get in the cockpit’. Other people say what they want about aviation and unless it is something like ‘I used this one weird trick to smuggle a sniper rifle past the X ray backscatter machine’ or ‘kewl! I jammed the gps on a plane and saw the coordinates change on ads-b’ you won’t face criminal charges. There was a day when Wilhelm Reich was sent to jail and L. Ron Hubbard exiled at sea. Today, it seems almost impossible to face criminal charges for bogus health information.
  - prepend 5y ago
    > Criminal charges for expressing your opinion is another. Being a paid expert witness is different than “expressing your opinion.” It’s one thing to be subpoenaed and compelled to testify and another to swear and speak authoritatively. Expert testimony “opinion” could result in people going to jail, or in this case paying large sums of money. I imagine a case of medical malpractice where an unlicensed doctor was expertly testifying as to the proper procedure. That seems inappropriate.
    - eru 5y ago
      Yes, though I wonder whether this couldn't be handled better? Courts are already organized as an adversarial system: So let the lawyers bring in whatever supposed experts they can find, and let the lawyers from the other side poke holes at their credentials? Same procedure as with eyewitnesses, which are not usually licensed.
- umvi 5y ago
  Some people want software engineering to be like other engineering disciplines where a PE license and/or union membership is mandatory to practice the trade.
clejack 5y ago
I first read this and immediately thought it was ridiculous. After a second read, I'm wondering if there is some deception going on. The idea that a license should be required to make advisement on designs impacting the public is reasonable. While nothing is guaranteed, it allows for a simple verification of skills. I find it hard to believe that any engineer would not know this because I was told companies and the gov. use PEs to sign off on designs that impact the public when I was getting my degree in mechanical engineering. The question here is whether this man was truly barred from speaking publicly about engineering or whether he was barred from testifying about engineering. The former would be a problem due to its broadness, but the second would definitely not be.
- amcoastal 5y ago
  They could've not considered his testimony, but instead they called it illegal under threat of being charged for a crime for giving his opinion.
  - mcguire 5y ago
    The court considered his testimony. The Board of Examiners is charging him with practicing engineering without a license.
- yokaze 5y ago
  You can read the letter linked in the article: https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/NC_Engineering_051921_letter.jpg https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/NC_Engineering_051... It looks to me more the latter: he "helping his son" by "speaking about engineering" is a written report in a court case. Quite a bit of framing
  - ivan_gammel 5y ago
    Court itself can decide what proof of expertise is acceptable. It should not be just a license.
    - 5y ago
michaelmcdonald 5y ago
I found this line to be particularly interesting: > In fact, like the majority of engineers nationwide, Wayne was not required to get a license since he worked for a company under the state’s “industrial exception.” A half-minute search on Google didn't seem to produce anything of relevance, but I did come across numerous articles talking about licensing not being needed. Would be curious to see more hard data on the number of un-licensed engineers and if there is any correlation to issues / shoddy work or not.
- timpattinson 5y ago
  In my experience licensing of engineers is almost exclusive to civil engineering and some other subfields. The vast majority of mechanical, electrical and software engineers will never need to be licensed. It's also possible for unlicensed engineers to work under the supervision of a licensed engineer (PE), often the PE will be the one to stamp drawings etc.
  - jpindar 5y ago
    >It's also possible for unlicensed engineers to work under the supervision of a licensed engineer (PE) AFAIK, it's required as part of the process of getting a PE.
    - PennRobotics 5y ago
      At least in Florida, there is an exception: (from FBPE 61G15, FL Admin Code) 7. Experience should be gained under the supervision of a licensed professional engineer or, if not, an explanation should be made showing why the experience should be considered acceptable.
- brudgers 5y ago
  I worked in a building department. My experience is there is a correlation between unsafe construction and unlicensed individuals. A large degree of the correlation is lack of experience, so there are corner cases where unlicensed individuals build something safe. But generally it won’t meet building code and the building code describes the very worst construction that is legal… …and even that is hard to get right because licensed professionals struggle with it all the time and that’s why I was reviewing plans.
mkl95 5y ago
Useless bureaucracy hinders innovation and progress. I live in Spain where engineering is very regulated. This results in some engineers spending 6+ years in university to gain the same status as their international peers who studied for 3 or 4 years. There's no point in enforcing this other than collecting fees to pay the salaries of people who don't really do anything.
- colechristensen 5y ago
  There is a point to enforcing it, but sometimes it is way overdone. It is a license to speak truth about a profession and perform it. Making bullshit illegal. It works for certain professions where the individual can be a commodity and the customer can't reliably determine the trust themselves. When you're designing bridges or homes or public infrastructure, a lot of times it can be very difficult to pick a good expert (which is necessary, these things can screw up and end lives and waste billions), so you have professional organizations which do the verification for you. Somebody else makes the "hiring decision" which is fine. But if you lose focus of what the purpose is, you get bureaucratic zealots who follow regulations without any attention to what they are for.
  - deftnerd 5y ago
    You do make a good point. It makes me think of the occasional video of a registered nurse standing in front of a City Council saying things like vaccines cause Autism, or the COVID-19 vaccine has tracking chips in it. Seeing that makes me think that they should lose their license, which goes against the feeling I feel in this engineers case. That makes me worry that I'm making my decision based on if I think what they're saying is correct or not, not if they should have the right to say it.
    - colechristensen 5y ago
      I think the key is what you get to say while claiming "I am an X, therefore (implicitly) trust what I say" Whether it's a medical professional, architect, engineer, etc., I don't have a problem with the speech and actions of a person being regulated by a professional organization while they are claiming to be of that profession. i.e. legally protecting the term doctor/nurse/engineer/lawyer/etc. is just fine. If you are not, you need to make it clear that you are indeed not a licensed professional.
insaneirish 5y ago
I can imagine the Board’s overreach being applied to teaching engineering as well. All my engineering professors certainly had PhDs in engineering (or similar). Yet few if any of them had a PE license. Would they be prohibited from testifying as well? Or what if the Board claims classroom activities are too close to ‘practicing’ engineering for their comfort?
- chiph 5y ago
  And since this fellow spent probably 30+ years as a practicing engineer, I would think his experience counts for more than someone who got their PE the previous week.
  - flenserboy 5y ago
    Credentialism lifts up and empowers the mediocre while cutting off discussion. This results in sclerotic professions and oversight authorities which cannot adapt to changing conditions, usually causing far more and worse long-term damage than any short-term issues they prevent. I can only speak for the US, but look around — this is a real issue in medicine, law, and most anywhere you look, and the problem has been accelerated by the sheer number of college/grad degrees given out like candy the last 20 years.
    - logicchains 5y ago
      > the problem has been accelerated by the sheer number of college/grad degrees given out like candy the last 20 years At least in medicine this isn't the case; the AMA effectively limits the number of positions available. The ratio of doctors to patients has hence been steadily decreasing over the past few decades.
      - flenserboy 5y ago
        You're right on that — I was thinking more (and should have specified) supporting professions, such as dietitians.
      - 5y ago
the_lonely_road 5y ago
What a fascinating case. There are so many details in such a short articles that is each worth its own discussion! Let’s start with my personally theory that hopefully won’t color all of the conversation about the individual points. This guy pissed off some people and those people are using their petty power to make his life hell. It’s like the 10’s of thousands of people jaywalking without issue and then the homeless guy that gets arrested for jaw walking. We all know that’s not why he was arrested but the law is clear, he was breaking the law, and they enforced it. So the individual incident dots it’s I’s and crosses it’s t’s as long as you don’t bring up the dreaded ‘uneven enforcement’ issue which is at the heart of everything wrong with the law in America. I have no evidence for the theory but it makes sense with the multiple issues involving this guy mentioned in such a short article. Next interesting point. Is giving a speech about how to treat a broken bone considered ‘practicing medicine’? Who gets to decide the answer. Is a PHD candidate writing an exploration of the efficacy of the various methods for treating a migraine practicing medicine? What if he’s selling copies of his paper on the checkout counter at the drug store? I use medicine instead of engineering because I think it’s easier to discuss but the point should hold the same regardless of which licensed profession we are discussing. Shit I have to run but hope to return to this conversation to discuss the other fun questions raised.
- rpeden 5y ago
  I know it's a typo, but jaw walking definitely sounds like an arrest-worthy offense. :)
  - dstick 5y ago
    I don’t know, that seems enough punishment in and of itself ;-)
- brudgers 5y ago
  What is engineering other than expressing an opinion? Engineers are trained to have expert opinions. They are expected to consider all relevant factors. In AEC the relevant factors include compliance with relevant laws and rules such as the building codes and all the documents incorporated by reference. It is a matter of life safety and the regulation of construction is at least as old as the Code of Hammurabi…it predates the first amendment by three millennia. In that context an unlicensed person holding themselves out as an expert in engineering has disregarded a basic responsibility, they have ignored a relevant legal requirement: their license. This raises a legitimate concern. What other corners might they have cut for their own benefit? Because ignoring licensure is to no one’s benefit but the person doing so. It is a violation of the trust people expect when engaging with engineers. The trust that the engineer will be objective in relevant matters. Licensing engineers is why you don’t worry when you drive across a bridge…or under one. Or go up a tall building or stand next to it. It’s why collapsed bridges are news.
hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
Texas may do a lot of crazy things when it comes to state government, but one thing I think we definitely got right is the Texas Sunset Commission (https://www.sunset.texas.gov/ https://www.sunset.texas.gov/). Basically, all boards set up by the state government are automatically abolished every 10 years I believe unless the state legislature passes a law to continue the board. So every 10 years the Sunset Commission evaluates agencies/boards about to expire and gives recommendations on if they should be merged, eliminated, etc. The whole idea is to prevent these little long-running fiefdoms from continuing indefinitely, where board members just become more concerned about their own power than their stated purpose. People being people it's not perfect, but it does go a long way to cut down on this type of abuse.
- strictfp 5y ago
  Love this. I also have a silly question; is the sunset commission subject to the same principle?
  - hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
    Sort of: https://www.sunset.texas.gov/about-us/frequently-asked-questions#9 https://www.sunset.texas.gov/about-us/frequently-asked-quest... And I had a mistake in my timing, it's every 12 years.
  - pestaa 5y ago
    Who chaos monkeys the chaos monkey?
    - greesil 5y ago
      Qui conturbat turbatores accingi
      - temporama1 5y ago
        Yeah...
      - 5y ago
ramshanker 5y ago
It’s a US thing I believe . In india, I don’t need to obtain any license to sign my Structural Engineering drawings. In my organisation, EIL, a public sector EPC enterprise under Government of India, you become signing authority on drawings with approx 15 years of experience. Thats it. For expert witness in courts, I have heard only Collage Professors considered.
- SeanLuke 5y ago
  > It’s a US thing I believe It is a great many countries.
phasetransition 5y ago
I'm curious to see where this goes. In my personal experience, it is standard practice to need/be requested to submit designs for review by a PE, if you aren't one. I was originally trained as a materials engineer, and nearly 20 years ago there was no clear PE exam to take for that discipline, so I never considered getting one. Today, I wouldn't want to be encumbered with the E&O insurance and other restrictions of a PE, and I would have to review extensively to pass the test. In my professional experience, it has always been nice to have a 3rd party look over your design, and the expense is of no consequence if the customer/law require the review. For a legal case, I'm not surprised that the barrier of entry for expert testimony might be a PE. I'd be interested to understand from a lawyer here on HN what the extent of protected speech is in a courtroom situation.
csours 5y ago
This headline reminded me of another case in Oregon, and in fact IJ was involved in it as well and they link to it from this article: https://ij.org/press-release/oregon-engineer-makes-history-with-new-traffic-light-timing-formula/ https://ij.org/press-release/oregon-engineer-makes-history-w...
losvedir 5y ago
IJ does great work. They definitely have a libertarian bent, and while I wouldn't necessarily want to live in a full blown taxation-is-theft society, I do feel better knowing there are groups out there providing necessary pushback like seen here. A big case they won here in my state was returning a $40k car that was confiscated by the police because the person was arrested on a $100 drug crime. I donate to them and encourage others to do so as well. And if you were one of the people complaining in that other HN thread about the alleged changes in the ACLU, consider donating here instead, rather than just not donating to any civil rights groups.
WesolyKubeczek 5y ago
I see here a huge imbalance. On one hand, there's a board that can order an expert in a certain field to shut up and not even talk about his field of expertise, and now said expert has to go to the court. On the other hand, the internet has become this fucking enormous megaphone of people who have no idea what they're talking about, they are also completely free to put up fucking billboards IRL about, say, how the pandemic is a hoax and how vaccines are dangerous — nobody bats an eye, and there's really is no efficient way to get them to shut the fuck up about stuff they've got no clue about. Now I'm not saying there should be censorship (although requiring tinfoil hat wielders to pay hefty license fees sounds very tempting), but it looks like today it's way easier to silence a real subject matter expert than a pompous charlatan, and that's plain unfair.
- nobodyandproud 5y ago
  The early days of consumer internet—up to the early 2000s—didn’t exhibit the same scale of misinformation as what we see today. The problem of today is that misinformation scales far more easily than quality information, and it’s because we don’t have the tools to filter out well-written (grammar and tone) misinformation. I’m not sure credentialism alone is the answer though.
ENOTTY 5y ago
This is a sympathetic framing on an attempt to chip away at licensing requirements. Not saying whether that’s good or bad, just want to point it out
elteto 5y ago
The framing of the title is a bit disingenuous. He is not “talking” about engineering to a bunch of college students. He is providing expert opinion in a court case. This is a whole different deal and I think there is nuance here. Honestly, I don’t like the manipulation with the title and how they are framing the whole thing. Makes me cautious about emitting an opinion.
- nomdep 5y ago
  In the article it says he declared that he wasn’t a licensed engineer. At most, you could argue that his expert testimony is not valid, saying that it is illegal it is a whole different deal. It smells like corruption of the NC government to me.
  - dasudasu 5y ago
    "I'm not a medical doctor, but here is a bunch of medical advice that should be used to prosecute this defendant." It doesn't sound that great either way. Either you have the expertise to make such judgments, or you don't, and shouldn't try to pass off legal opinions you can't legally make with a disclaimer, as if that absolves everything. I can fully understand someone getting irritated at this and trying to go one step further.
    - squeaky-clean 5y ago
      Did you read the bit where 80% of employed engineers in North Carolina don't have an engineering license, but have an industry exemption from state law? He was legally an engineer for decades up until his retirement. So imagine if 80% of doctors didn't have some sort of license allowing them to speak about their practice. > In fact, like the majority of engineers nationwide, Wayne was not required to get a license since he worked for a company under the state’s “industrial exception.” > By some estimates, 80% of engineers nationwide work legally without a license. By the Board’s interpretation, most engineers in North Carolina could not legally comment publicly on engineering.
      - 5y ago
toss1 5y ago
Obvious overreach. These engineers are no more practicing engineering without a license than anti-vaxxers are practicing medicine without a license. (OTOH, maybe we're on to something there...)
- morelisp 5y ago
  If I go into a hospital waiting room and start telling people there they shouldn't get vaccinated because it will give them autism, you can bet I've opened myself up to much greater consequences than just getting kicked out of the hospital.
  - toss1 5y ago
    The anti-vaxxers seem to do it all the time without much in the way of consequences
vzaliva 5y ago
The article's title is misleading. NC does not forbid him to talk engineering. He can write blog posts, yell at the corners, print books. What it does not allow him is to testify as a witness in a court presenting himself as an engineering expert. While I agree this distinction (being licensed) is stupid, the court is within its right to impose it. Spinning this case as some sort free speech supression is just bad jourlalism.
- orangecat 5y ago
  the court is within its right to impose it There's no problem with the court declining to treat him as an expert witness. This is about the state threatening to arrest him for truthfully describing his experience and opinions.
underseacables 5y ago
North Carolina is notorious for this behavior. They tried to tell a man He could not talk with friends about his diabetes, and recommend foods they should eat. They were sued and had to settle. The state tried to say that only a dentist can do teeth whitening. They were sued (by the FTC) and lost. You should not need a license to talk with another individual about whatever you want. Should this man be allowed to testify in court without a license? Absolutely. It’s up to the court to decide his credibility and expertise, and allow it or disallow it. Not a government board.
VictorPath 5y ago
The retired "engineer" can talk about engineering, he just can't present expert witness in a trial. Also, he was never licensed as an engineer, it's not as if his engineering license lapsed after testimony. You can throw out all expert testimony in the US if you wish, I guess that would put CSI out of business.
MisterBastahrd 5y ago
"North Carolina tells non-professional engineer that he can't present expert witness testimony because he isn't an expert by either legal or professional standards" isn't as catchy, I guess. I wonder if this org is just fine with non-CPAs handling their finances.
hervature 5y ago
> But Wayne’s troubles began when he when he agreed to help his son, Kyle, a North Carolina attorney, with a case about a piping system that allegedly flooded a few local homes. Is anyone more disturbed by the fact that a family member can serve as an impartial expert witness?
- staticman2 5y ago
  Expert witnesses are pretty much never impartial. Each attorney picks their own witness subject to the judge's approval on professional qualifications. The attorney, not the judge, chooses the witnesses. They get paid to say what the defense attorney wants them to say or the plaintiff attorney wants them to say. A plaintiff expert witness who doesn't say what the attorney wants will soon be out of work or vice versa. So you often get each side with a biased witnessess arguing the other biased witness is wrong.
  - ghaff 5y ago
    >They get paid to say what the defense attorney wants them to say or the plaintiff attorney wants them to say. Having done this sort of work... Sort of. We were picked in part because we had already publicly written about a case in a way that supported one side's position. (Obviously the side that reached out to us.) There was nothing in our report I didn't personally agree with. I'd add that my understanding is that, while some people do a relatively large amount of expert witness work--we did not--the preference is that expert witnesses don't do this as a full-time gig where it becomes a matter of supporting what whoever paying them wants.
- logicalmonster 5y ago
  I don't think expert witnesses are supposed to be necessarily impartial and can't personally favor one side or the other winning a case. It's part of the legal process that attorneys go out and hunt for the best possible advocate for their side. Additionally, expert witnesses are often paid a fee for their time and effort involved in preparing for and appearing to testify on a case. If we want to talk about bias, it feels like accepting money from one side should be just as damning as having a familial connection. To me, it feels like any potential bias should be disclosed in legal filings and argued by the other side of the case during the legal dispute, and the judge/jury should weigh this in whatever decision-making process they employ. In closing, I'd say this. Preparing for a serious trial might cost tens of thousands of dollars or more. Do you really want to live in a world where you can't offer to help a family member or friend who asks for your help in a subject matter you know about?
lxe 5y ago
Again? I was just reading about a similar case: https://www.nbc4i.com/news/electrical-engineer-fined-for-practicing-engineering-without-a-license-after-exposing-traffic-light-flaw/ https://www.nbc4i.com/news/electrical-engineer-fined-for-pra...
cratermoon 5y ago
The Institute for Justice is the same Koch-backed[1] anti-government libertarian law firm that sued Oregon for the cranky Swedish guy who complained about traffic lights[2]. 1 https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Institute_for_Justice https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Institute_for_Justice 2 https://ij.org/press-release/oregon-engineer-wins-traffic-light-timing-lawsuit/ https://ij.org/press-release/oregon-engineer-wins-traffic-li...
stevespang 5y ago
Hope the I of J files suit against Texas soon enough, for years the State of Texas board has been sending nasty letters to anyone who uses the word "engineer" on their business card, web page, sign, etc. that you have to pay up to them, and take and pass some grade school exam in order to be able to use the word engineer. Software engineers in Texas all have given up using that title.
jbluepolarbear 5y ago
Here’s the thing I don’t understand, why are licenses required for engineers? Is it an ethics thing? This reminds me of the guy here in Portland that told the city their traffic lights were wrong and they fined him for not having an engineering license. I don’t have a degree, no license, or accreditation, yet I’ve worked for government contracts, medical software, and designed hardware for doctors. Would I then be sued for giving advice from my proven track record? I’ve never called myself an engineer yet most of my job titles say Engineer.
JoeAltmaier 5y ago
Licensing boards are for one thing - to issue licenses. If the government further wants to require a license for working on government project, fine. But to decide a license is needed for anything other than "advertising you have a license" is perverted. Some government official who wants to control people, not keep them safe and organized. Its all about power I guess.
rcgorton 5y ago
So what is their position on software engineers based in North Carolina offering opinions on Usenet/stackoverflow/other forums? Or even more aggregious, writing technical engineering papers? I do not follow their 'logic' here
blunte 5y ago
Of course it's corporate corruption of government that is driving this case. "he is an engineer at heart and speaks up when he sees people make what he believes to be engineering mistakes. He has written letters to state and county governments and testified before a county commission. But Wayne’s troubles began when he when he agreed to help his son, Kyle, a North Carolina attorney, with a case about a piping system that allegedly flooded a few local homes" If he were telling lies, he would be legally accountable to the individuals or companies that his lies harmed. That would probably be an easy case to bring against him to stop him from telling lies. But this approach of trying to silence him on grounds of not technically being an engineer shows plainly that he is telling enough truth that he wouldn't be accountable for lying and causing harm. Cases like this are probably common, although the methods of silencing vary from situation to situation. While the US may not be as corrupt as many other countries, it still has a significant amount which ultimately harms the general public and certainly harms the few individuals that find themselves on the wrong side of a corrupt authority.
- mobilefriendly 5y ago
  The ACLU has abandoned its defense of free speech in the US; I'm glad to see IJ taking up the mantle.
  - GavinMcG 5y ago
    Earlier this week, the ACLU published this[0] article, "The Problem With Censoring Political Speech Online – Including Trump’s". More substantively, they recently filed a brief[1] supporting Americans for Prosperity (the Koch brothers' primary political advocacy group) fighting against a government demand for donor lists. That's just the stuff I found on the national website with a minute or two of looking around—I didn't even dig into what state ACLU groups are doing, and they do the bulk of litigation. Abandoned free speech they have not. [0] https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/the-problem-with-censoring-political-speech-online-including-trumps/ https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/the-problem-with-censo... [1] https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/prosperity-foundation-v-xavier-becerra-attorney-general-california-amicus-brief https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/prosperity-foundation-v-...
mcguire 5y ago
Two complaints: All of the articles I can find are copies of the IJ release. And the title is click-bait. It appears from the IJ's "details" (https://ij.org/case/nc-engineering-speech/)that https://ij.org/case/nc-engineering-speech/)that Nutt is a chemical engineer. ("Wayne Nutt spent over 37 years as a practicing engineer, mostly working for the DuPont corporation in North Carolina. In that time, he worked with a variety of different technologies and designed and built a variety of things, including pipes for transportation of fluid, while developing deep expertise in chemical engineering and technology.") He provided expert testimony on a water drainage issue. ("Wayne’s trouble started when he volunteered to testify as an expert witness in a case his son, an attorney, was litigating. The case involved a piping system in a housing development that allegedly caused flooding in nearby areas, and Wayne, who had designed plenty of pipes in his day, volunteered to testify about the volume of fluid that pipe could be expected to carry.") Then, "After Wayne testified truthfully that he was not (and never had been) a licensed engineer, the lawyers for the defendant threatened to report him to the North Carolina Board of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors. Wayne didn’t take the threat seriously; he wasn’t designing anything or building anything, he was just offering his opinion about something that might have happened in the past." Offering expert testimony appears to fall under the definition of "practice of engineering" (https://codes.findlaw.com/nc/chapter-89c-engineering-and-land-surveying/nc-gen-st-sect-89c-3.html https://codes.findlaw.com/nc/chapter-89c-engineering-and-lan...). "The practice of engineering in North Carolina for projects or testimony impacting the public in North Carolina requires that the individual and company must be licensed in North Carolina. ... Our Board considers that any testimony that requires engineering knowledge to adequately provide and to protect the public falls with the definition of the practice of engineering and requires a NC PE license." (https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/NC_Engineering_email.pdf https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/NC_Engineering_ema...) The court appears to have allowed him to provide the expert testimony, but the Board is doing what it does. There's not much to see here; no one except the IJ is saying anything about "he can't talk about engineering"---the topic in question is expert testimony and I don't think federal courts are going to regard that as some form of protected speech in this situation.
sQL_inject 5y ago
Nepotistic credentialism scribed into stone by bureaucrats and enforceable by jailtime. This is happening at a grand scale and is only hastening the cancerous growth of Cost Disease. Oh, you don't have a programming license? You aren't allowed to write C++.
kwdc 5y ago
We have news media and journalism specifically to investigate and hold politicians and government to account. Why would we not allow the same in engineering? Outrageous. Something definitely smells. Worth further investigation.
MiscIdeaMaker99 5y ago
This is a one-sided article written by the lawyers of the plaintiff. I don't care to know the rest of the story, so I don't have a worthy comment to make regarding the merits of the free speech argument in the article; however, professional licensing exists for very good reasons, and this article isn't a reason that it should all go away, as many folks here seem to have concluded.
xdmr 5y ago
A lot of people seem to be splitting hairs over whether this guy's testimony or report in the trial is or isn't "practicing engineering," and whether that means that he's therefore clearly in violation of the rules and should be punished, or whether this proves that professional licensing is evil and should be abolished. What's missing is the fact that the conduct in question happened in a courtroom. If I drive over a bridge and it collapses and kills me, I don't get to hire a lawyer and an expert witness from the afterlife and have them try to impeach the credibility of the bridge designer or demonstrate the unsuitability of his plans and, if I manage to convince a jury, I get to be resurrected. Since I can't do this, the state enacted some rules about what kind of qualifications the guy designing the bridge has to have. But in a courtroom, if I don't like this unlicensed engineer the other side wants to put on the stand, I can try to prove he doesn't know what he's talking about. I can hire my own engineer to help me come up with tricky questions to make a fool of him on the stand and maybe prevent him being accepted as an expert. I can cross-examine him with help from my own engineer to prepare. I can have my own engineer testify to rebut his claims. I have all sorts of options besides causing him to be threatened with violation of professional licensing laws. The point is that the professional licensing laws exist to protect people in situations like driving over a bridge. They do not exist to protect the public from the risk that unlicensed people may testify in court about engineering, thereby potentially producing injustice. This is because lawyers already exist to do this job, and are extensively trained and licensed to do it. That's why the lawsuit attacks the professional licensing laws as _overbroad_, not inappropriate in the context of certifying people to design bridges and that kind of thing.
ClumsyPilot 5y ago
Meanwhile Executives, presidents and ministers don't need to show competence in anything at all, and their decisions affect lives of millions

489 points by tomohawk 5y ago

It's not clear from the complaint if he's being threatened with legal action because he's voiced his opinion, or because he prepared testimony as an expert witness concerning engineering in a trial. Given that the case cites numerous times he gave his opinion in "public and quasi-judicial" fora without mentioning reprimand, it seems like it's the latter. That's doesn't sound like a first amendment violation. Truth is not the only bar to clear in legal testimony.

brudgers 5y ago
Public hearings for real estate development approval are commonly quasi-judicial. It would be unsurprising if that was the context because it is a context in which other participants would have concerns over unqualified persons holding themselves out as experts. It is also a context in which it is easy to collect evidence. It is worth distinguishing that engineers are regulated because their opinions carry legal weight. They carry legal weight because the truth is difficult to determine and even experts (i.e engineers) can’t readily determine it absolutely (hence safety factors). The safety valve for engineering opinion’s weight is engineers are personally liable for errors in judgment (no corporate protection).
Closi 5y ago
I don’t see why someone needs to be licensed to provide expert opinion (even in court). It’s just the job of the other side to discredit the expert witness. Engineering licences are really meant to protect unqualified people making bad designs which get made and produce safety/quality issues - their purpose isn’t to work out who should be able to say what. They are about making sure something physical gets built correctly according to code. The idea that someone could see a safety issue related to the engineering of something and wouldn’t be able to raise it (in either a casual or legal setting) because they don’t have a licence is clearly absurd.
- staticman2 5y ago
  The obvious reason you might want him to have a license to speak in court is if he's blatently lying in court about engineering you can revoke the license after a legal proceeding and no longer have a paid liar as a tool for attorneys to hire to decieve the judge and jury.
  - gopiandcode 5y ago
    If the expert witness were lying, wouldn't that be perjury, and doesn't that come with its own legal repercussions?
    - staticman2 5y ago
      Sure, in theory lying can have legal consequences, but only if you can prove the person is intentionally lying. To take away the license you'd only have to prove they are stating things no qualified engineer would say. Suppose, for example, an engineer testified that bricks should never be used in housing because in his professional opinion bricks cause cancer. His source is a blog post as reliable as a supermarket tabloid. How do you prove he's intentionally lying, rather than just insane or confused or stupid? By making it a license issue instead, you at least move the goal as to whether his statements meet some minimum standard of professional expectations or care. This is all just hypothetical, in practice I don't know to what extent these license authorities are supervising engineers. But ideally I'd like an engineer to at least have some pressure to remain honest when they testify in court.

roenxi 5y ago

No opinion on whether this is a new development or not, but needing a license to talk about engineering is really stupid. By far the majority of engineering work is stating the obvious. Even a novice with some calculus background could probably come to the right answer if they had access to the necessary data. Maybe they'd need a little help warming up. Engineers are just more reliable at getting to the obvious answer, and have made enough mistakes that they double check their calculations. Licensing laws used against people are more likely to be used for political cover rather than to protect the public.

cesaref 5y ago
It would make learning to be an engineer pretty difficult, if you can't talk about stuff until you are qualified!
blfr 5y ago
Needing a license to talk about anything is really stupid. We have seen credentialed experts trip time and again, succumb to industry pressure, form outright lobbies hostile to public interest. While there is some value in credentials for quick judgements and floor requirements, there is never an honest reason to bar someone from giving their opinion or testifying. Everyone is always free to not listen or disregard that opinion.
taneq 5y ago
It depends very much on precisely what you're talking about. Someone giving an opinion on a physical system? Absolutely should not be regulated. Someone giving engineering advice and representing that advice as the result of rigorous analysis and themselves as an authority on the topic? I can see an argument for regulating that. We place similar expectations on legal and medical advice, and wrong engineering advice is arguably more dangerous than both. (For values of 'engineering' involving 'building heavy machinery, physical infrastructure, etc. which lives depend on - a wrong diagnoses can kill one person, a bad load calc can potentially kill thousands if a stadium collapses. I don't mean giving advice on page layout in CSS needs to be regulated.) Edit: Note that I'm not saying he should be gagged, and the circumstances definitely need to be considered, just that I understand the reasoning behind standards for advice presented as authoritative. What's going on in TFA more smacks of union protectionism than genuine caution.

eru 5y ago

I remember discussions here on HN where people were looking forward to regulating software engineering.

PaulHoule 5y ago
That’s one thing. Criminal charges for expressing your opinion is another. An airplane pilot is licensed and will talk trash w/ people about flying and not get in trouble unless they express an opinion like ‘i love to drink a six pack before I get in the cockpit’. Other people say what they want about aviation and unless it is something like ‘I used this one weird trick to smuggle a sniper rifle past the X ray backscatter machine’ or ‘kewl! I jammed the gps on a plane and saw the coordinates change on ads-b’ you won’t face criminal charges. There was a day when Wilhelm Reich was sent to jail and L. Ron Hubbard exiled at sea. Today, it seems almost impossible to face criminal charges for bogus health information.
- prepend 5y ago
  > Criminal charges for expressing your opinion is another. Being a paid expert witness is different than “expressing your opinion.” It’s one thing to be subpoenaed and compelled to testify and another to swear and speak authoritatively. Expert testimony “opinion” could result in people going to jail, or in this case paying large sums of money. I imagine a case of medical malpractice where an unlicensed doctor was expertly testifying as to the proper procedure. That seems inappropriate.
  - eru 5y ago
    Yes, though I wonder whether this couldn't be handled better? Courts are already organized as an adversarial system: So let the lawyers bring in whatever supposed experts they can find, and let the lawyers from the other side poke holes at their credentials? Same procedure as with eyewitnesses, which are not usually licensed.
umvi 5y ago
Some people want software engineering to be like other engineering disciplines where a PE license and/or union membership is mandatory to practice the trade.

clejack 5y ago

I first read this and immediately thought it was ridiculous. After a second read, I'm wondering if there is some deception going on. The idea that a license should be required to make advisement on designs impacting the public is reasonable. While nothing is guaranteed, it allows for a simple verification of skills. I find it hard to believe that any engineer would not know this because I was told companies and the gov. use PEs to sign off on designs that impact the public when I was getting my degree in mechanical engineering. The question here is whether this man was truly barred from speaking publicly about engineering or whether he was barred from testifying about engineering. The former would be a problem due to its broadness, but the second would definitely not be.

amcoastal 5y ago
They could've not considered his testimony, but instead they called it illegal under threat of being charged for a crime for giving his opinion.
- mcguire 5y ago
  The court considered his testimony. The Board of Examiners is charging him with practicing engineering without a license.
yokaze 5y ago
You can read the letter linked in the article: https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/NC_Engineering_051921_letter.jpg https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/NC_Engineering_051... It looks to me more the latter: he "helping his son" by "speaking about engineering" is a written report in a court case. Quite a bit of framing
- ivan_gammel 5y ago
  Court itself can decide what proof of expertise is acceptable. It should not be just a license.
  - 5y ago

michaelmcdonald 5y ago

I found this line to be particularly interesting: > In fact, like the majority of engineers nationwide, Wayne was not required to get a license since he worked for a company under the state’s “industrial exception.” A half-minute search on Google didn't seem to produce anything of relevance, but I did come across numerous articles talking about licensing not being needed. Would be curious to see more hard data on the number of un-licensed engineers and if there is any correlation to issues / shoddy work or not.

timpattinson 5y ago
In my experience licensing of engineers is almost exclusive to civil engineering and some other subfields. The vast majority of mechanical, electrical and software engineers will never need to be licensed. It's also possible for unlicensed engineers to work under the supervision of a licensed engineer (PE), often the PE will be the one to stamp drawings etc.
- jpindar 5y ago
  >It's also possible for unlicensed engineers to work under the supervision of a licensed engineer (PE) AFAIK, it's required as part of the process of getting a PE.
  - PennRobotics 5y ago
    At least in Florida, there is an exception: (from FBPE 61G15, FL Admin Code) 7. Experience should be gained under the supervision of a licensed professional engineer or, if not, an explanation should be made showing why the experience should be considered acceptable.
brudgers 5y ago
I worked in a building department. My experience is there is a correlation between unsafe construction and unlicensed individuals. A large degree of the correlation is lack of experience, so there are corner cases where unlicensed individuals build something safe. But generally it won’t meet building code and the building code describes the very worst construction that is legal… …and even that is hard to get right because licensed professionals struggle with it all the time and that’s why I was reviewing plans.

mkl95 5y ago

Useless bureaucracy hinders innovation and progress. I live in Spain where engineering is very regulated. This results in some engineers spending 6+ years in university to gain the same status as their international peers who studied for 3 or 4 years. There's no point in enforcing this other than collecting fees to pay the salaries of people who don't really do anything.

colechristensen 5y ago
There is a point to enforcing it, but sometimes it is way overdone. It is a license to speak truth about a profession and perform it. Making bullshit illegal. It works for certain professions where the individual can be a commodity and the customer can't reliably determine the trust themselves. When you're designing bridges or homes or public infrastructure, a lot of times it can be very difficult to pick a good expert (which is necessary, these things can screw up and end lives and waste billions), so you have professional organizations which do the verification for you. Somebody else makes the "hiring decision" which is fine. But if you lose focus of what the purpose is, you get bureaucratic zealots who follow regulations without any attention to what they are for.
- deftnerd 5y ago
  You do make a good point. It makes me think of the occasional video of a registered nurse standing in front of a City Council saying things like vaccines cause Autism, or the COVID-19 vaccine has tracking chips in it. Seeing that makes me think that they should lose their license, which goes against the feeling I feel in this engineers case. That makes me worry that I'm making my decision based on if I think what they're saying is correct or not, not if they should have the right to say it.
  - colechristensen 5y ago
    I think the key is what you get to say while claiming "I am an X, therefore (implicitly) trust what I say" Whether it's a medical professional, architect, engineer, etc., I don't have a problem with the speech and actions of a person being regulated by a professional organization while they are claiming to be of that profession. i.e. legally protecting the term doctor/nurse/engineer/lawyer/etc. is just fine. If you are not, you need to make it clear that you are indeed not a licensed professional.

insaneirish 5y ago

I can imagine the Board’s overreach being applied to teaching engineering as well. All my engineering professors certainly had PhDs in engineering (or similar). Yet few if any of them had a PE license. Would they be prohibited from testifying as well? Or what if the Board claims classroom activities are too close to ‘practicing’ engineering for their comfort?

chiph 5y ago
And since this fellow spent probably 30+ years as a practicing engineer, I would think his experience counts for more than someone who got their PE the previous week.
- flenserboy 5y ago
  Credentialism lifts up and empowers the mediocre while cutting off discussion. This results in sclerotic professions and oversight authorities which cannot adapt to changing conditions, usually causing far more and worse long-term damage than any short-term issues they prevent. I can only speak for the US, but look around — this is a real issue in medicine, law, and most anywhere you look, and the problem has been accelerated by the sheer number of college/grad degrees given out like candy the last 20 years.
  - logicchains 5y ago
    > the problem has been accelerated by the sheer number of college/grad degrees given out like candy the last 20 years At least in medicine this isn't the case; the AMA effectively limits the number of positions available. The ratio of doctors to patients has hence been steadily decreasing over the past few decades.
    - flenserboy 5y ago
      You're right on that — I was thinking more (and should have specified) supporting professions, such as dietitians.
    - 5y ago

the_lonely_road 5y ago

What a fascinating case. There are so many details in such a short articles that is each worth its own discussion! Let’s start with my personally theory that hopefully won’t color all of the conversation about the individual points. This guy pissed off some people and those people are using their petty power to make his life hell. It’s like the 10’s of thousands of people jaywalking without issue and then the homeless guy that gets arrested for jaw walking. We all know that’s not why he was arrested but the law is clear, he was breaking the law, and they enforced it. So the individual incident dots it’s I’s and crosses it’s t’s as long as you don’t bring up the dreaded ‘uneven enforcement’ issue which is at the heart of everything wrong with the law in America. I have no evidence for the theory but it makes sense with the multiple issues involving this guy mentioned in such a short article. Next interesting point. Is giving a speech about how to treat a broken bone considered ‘practicing medicine’? Who gets to decide the answer. Is a PHD candidate writing an exploration of the efficacy of the various methods for treating a migraine practicing medicine? What if he’s selling copies of his paper on the checkout counter at the drug store? I use medicine instead of engineering because I think it’s easier to discuss but the point should hold the same regardless of which licensed profession we are discussing. Shit I have to run but hope to return to this conversation to discuss the other fun questions raised.

rpeden 5y ago
I know it's a typo, but jaw walking definitely sounds like an arrest-worthy offense. :)
- dstick 5y ago
  I don’t know, that seems enough punishment in and of itself ;-)
brudgers 5y ago
What is engineering other than expressing an opinion? Engineers are trained to have expert opinions. They are expected to consider all relevant factors. In AEC the relevant factors include compliance with relevant laws and rules such as the building codes and all the documents incorporated by reference. It is a matter of life safety and the regulation of construction is at least as old as the Code of Hammurabi…it predates the first amendment by three millennia. In that context an unlicensed person holding themselves out as an expert in engineering has disregarded a basic responsibility, they have ignored a relevant legal requirement: their license. This raises a legitimate concern. What other corners might they have cut for their own benefit? Because ignoring licensure is to no one’s benefit but the person doing so. It is a violation of the trust people expect when engaging with engineers. The trust that the engineer will be objective in relevant matters. Licensing engineers is why you don’t worry when you drive across a bridge…or under one. Or go up a tall building or stand next to it. It’s why collapsed bridges are news.

hn_throwaway_99 5y ago

Texas may do a lot of crazy things when it comes to state government, but one thing I think we definitely got right is the Texas Sunset Commission (https://www.sunset.texas.gov/ https://www.sunset.texas.gov/). Basically, all boards set up by the state government are automatically abolished every 10 years I believe unless the state legislature passes a law to continue the board. So every 10 years the Sunset Commission evaluates agencies/boards about to expire and gives recommendations on if they should be merged, eliminated, etc. The whole idea is to prevent these little long-running fiefdoms from continuing indefinitely, where board members just become more concerned about their own power than their stated purpose. People being people it's not perfect, but it does go a long way to cut down on this type of abuse.

strictfp 5y ago
Love this. I also have a silly question; is the sunset commission subject to the same principle?
- hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
  Sort of: https://www.sunset.texas.gov/about-us/frequently-asked-questions#9 https://www.sunset.texas.gov/about-us/frequently-asked-quest... And I had a mistake in my timing, it's every 12 years.
- pestaa 5y ago
  Who chaos monkeys the chaos monkey?
  - greesil 5y ago
    Qui conturbat turbatores accingi
    - temporama1 5y ago
      Yeah...
    - 5y ago

ramshanker 5y ago

It’s a US thing I believe . In india, I don’t need to obtain any license to sign my Structural Engineering drawings. In my organisation, EIL, a public sector EPC enterprise under Government of India, you become signing authority on drawings with approx 15 years of experience. Thats it. For expert witness in courts, I have heard only Collage Professors considered.

SeanLuke 5y ago
> It’s a US thing I believe It is a great many countries.

phasetransition 5y ago

I'm curious to see where this goes. In my personal experience, it is standard practice to need/be requested to submit designs for review by a PE, if you aren't one. I was originally trained as a materials engineer, and nearly 20 years ago there was no clear PE exam to take for that discipline, so I never considered getting one. Today, I wouldn't want to be encumbered with the E&O insurance and other restrictions of a PE, and I would have to review extensively to pass the test. In my professional experience, it has always been nice to have a 3rd party look over your design, and the expense is of no consequence if the customer/law require the review. For a legal case, I'm not surprised that the barrier of entry for expert testimony might be a PE. I'd be interested to understand from a lawyer here on HN what the extent of protected speech is in a courtroom situation.

csours 5y ago

This headline reminded me of another case in Oregon, and in fact IJ was involved in it as well and they link to it from this article: https://ij.org/press-release/oregon-engineer-makes-history-with-new-traffic-light-timing-formula/ https://ij.org/press-release/oregon-engineer-makes-history-w...

losvedir 5y ago

IJ does great work. They definitely have a libertarian bent, and while I wouldn't necessarily want to live in a full blown taxation-is-theft society, I do feel better knowing there are groups out there providing necessary pushback like seen here. A big case they won here in my state was returning a $40k car that was confiscated by the police because the person was arrested on a $100 drug crime. I donate to them and encourage others to do so as well. And if you were one of the people complaining in that other HN thread about the alleged changes in the ACLU, consider donating here instead, rather than just not donating to any civil rights groups.

WesolyKubeczek 5y ago

I see here a huge imbalance. On one hand, there's a board that can order an expert in a certain field to shut up and not even talk about his field of expertise, and now said expert has to go to the court. On the other hand, the internet has become this fucking enormous megaphone of people who have no idea what they're talking about, they are also completely free to put up fucking billboards IRL about, say, how the pandemic is a hoax and how vaccines are dangerous — nobody bats an eye, and there's really is no efficient way to get them to shut the fuck up about stuff they've got no clue about. Now I'm not saying there should be censorship (although requiring tinfoil hat wielders to pay hefty license fees sounds very tempting), but it looks like today it's way easier to silence a real subject matter expert than a pompous charlatan, and that's plain unfair.

nobodyandproud 5y ago
The early days of consumer internet—up to the early 2000s—didn’t exhibit the same scale of misinformation as what we see today. The problem of today is that misinformation scales far more easily than quality information, and it’s because we don’t have the tools to filter out well-written (grammar and tone) misinformation. I’m not sure credentialism alone is the answer though.

ENOTTY 5y ago

This is a sympathetic framing on an attempt to chip away at licensing requirements. Not saying whether that’s good or bad, just want to point it out

elteto 5y ago

The framing of the title is a bit disingenuous. He is not “talking” about engineering to a bunch of college students. He is providing expert opinion in a court case. This is a whole different deal and I think there is nuance here. Honestly, I don’t like the manipulation with the title and how they are framing the whole thing. Makes me cautious about emitting an opinion.

nomdep 5y ago
In the article it says he declared that he wasn’t a licensed engineer. At most, you could argue that his expert testimony is not valid, saying that it is illegal it is a whole different deal. It smells like corruption of the NC government to me.
- dasudasu 5y ago
  "I'm not a medical doctor, but here is a bunch of medical advice that should be used to prosecute this defendant." It doesn't sound that great either way. Either you have the expertise to make such judgments, or you don't, and shouldn't try to pass off legal opinions you can't legally make with a disclaimer, as if that absolves everything. I can fully understand someone getting irritated at this and trying to go one step further.
  - squeaky-clean 5y ago
    Did you read the bit where 80% of employed engineers in North Carolina don't have an engineering license, but have an industry exemption from state law? He was legally an engineer for decades up until his retirement. So imagine if 80% of doctors didn't have some sort of license allowing them to speak about their practice. > In fact, like the majority of engineers nationwide, Wayne was not required to get a license since he worked for a company under the state’s “industrial exception.” > By some estimates, 80% of engineers nationwide work legally without a license. By the Board’s interpretation, most engineers in North Carolina could not legally comment publicly on engineering.
    - 5y ago

toss1 5y ago

Obvious overreach. These engineers are no more practicing engineering without a license than anti-vaxxers are practicing medicine without a license. (OTOH, maybe we're on to something there...)

morelisp 5y ago
If I go into a hospital waiting room and start telling people there they shouldn't get vaccinated because it will give them autism, you can bet I've opened myself up to much greater consequences than just getting kicked out of the hospital.
- toss1 5y ago
  The anti-vaxxers seem to do it all the time without much in the way of consequences

vzaliva 5y ago

The article's title is misleading. NC does not forbid him to talk engineering. He can write blog posts, yell at the corners, print books. What it does not allow him is to testify as a witness in a court presenting himself as an engineering expert. While I agree this distinction (being licensed) is stupid, the court is within its right to impose it. Spinning this case as some sort free speech supression is just bad jourlalism.

orangecat 5y ago
the court is within its right to impose it There's no problem with the court declining to treat him as an expert witness. This is about the state threatening to arrest him for truthfully describing his experience and opinions.

underseacables 5y ago

North Carolina is notorious for this behavior. They tried to tell a man He could not talk with friends about his diabetes, and recommend foods they should eat. They were sued and had to settle. The state tried to say that only a dentist can do teeth whitening. They were sued (by the FTC) and lost. You should not need a license to talk with another individual about whatever you want. Should this man be allowed to testify in court without a license? Absolutely. It’s up to the court to decide his credibility and expertise, and allow it or disallow it. Not a government board.

VictorPath 5y ago

The retired "engineer" can talk about engineering, he just can't present expert witness in a trial. Also, he was never licensed as an engineer, it's not as if his engineering license lapsed after testimony. You can throw out all expert testimony in the US if you wish, I guess that would put CSI out of business.

MisterBastahrd 5y ago

"North Carolina tells non-professional engineer that he can't present expert witness testimony because he isn't an expert by either legal or professional standards" isn't as catchy, I guess. I wonder if this org is just fine with non-CPAs handling their finances.

hervature 5y ago

> But Wayne’s troubles began when he when he agreed to help his son, Kyle, a North Carolina attorney, with a case about a piping system that allegedly flooded a few local homes. Is anyone more disturbed by the fact that a family member can serve as an impartial expert witness?

staticman2 5y ago
Expert witnesses are pretty much never impartial. Each attorney picks their own witness subject to the judge's approval on professional qualifications. The attorney, not the judge, chooses the witnesses. They get paid to say what the defense attorney wants them to say or the plaintiff attorney wants them to say. A plaintiff expert witness who doesn't say what the attorney wants will soon be out of work or vice versa. So you often get each side with a biased witnessess arguing the other biased witness is wrong.
- ghaff 5y ago
  >They get paid to say what the defense attorney wants them to say or the plaintiff attorney wants them to say. Having done this sort of work... Sort of. We were picked in part because we had already publicly written about a case in a way that supported one side's position. (Obviously the side that reached out to us.) There was nothing in our report I didn't personally agree with. I'd add that my understanding is that, while some people do a relatively large amount of expert witness work--we did not--the preference is that expert witnesses don't do this as a full-time gig where it becomes a matter of supporting what whoever paying them wants.
logicalmonster 5y ago
I don't think expert witnesses are supposed to be necessarily impartial and can't personally favor one side or the other winning a case. It's part of the legal process that attorneys go out and hunt for the best possible advocate for their side. Additionally, expert witnesses are often paid a fee for their time and effort involved in preparing for and appearing to testify on a case. If we want to talk about bias, it feels like accepting money from one side should be just as damning as having a familial connection. To me, it feels like any potential bias should be disclosed in legal filings and argued by the other side of the case during the legal dispute, and the judge/jury should weigh this in whatever decision-making process they employ. In closing, I'd say this. Preparing for a serious trial might cost tens of thousands of dollars or more. Do you really want to live in a world where you can't offer to help a family member or friend who asks for your help in a subject matter you know about?

lxe 5y ago

Again? I was just reading about a similar case: https://www.nbc4i.com/news/electrical-engineer-fined-for-practicing-engineering-without-a-license-after-exposing-traffic-light-flaw/ https://www.nbc4i.com/news/electrical-engineer-fined-for-pra...

cratermoon 5y ago

The Institute for Justice is the same Koch-backed[1] anti-government libertarian law firm that sued Oregon for the cranky Swedish guy who complained about traffic lights[2]. 1 https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Institute_for_Justice https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Institute_for_Justice 2 https://ij.org/press-release/oregon-engineer-wins-traffic-light-timing-lawsuit/ https://ij.org/press-release/oregon-engineer-wins-traffic-li...

stevespang 5y ago

Hope the I of J files suit against Texas soon enough, for years the State of Texas board has been sending nasty letters to anyone who uses the word "engineer" on their business card, web page, sign, etc. that you have to pay up to them, and take and pass some grade school exam in order to be able to use the word engineer. Software engineers in Texas all have given up using that title.

jbluepolarbear 5y ago

Here’s the thing I don’t understand, why are licenses required for engineers? Is it an ethics thing? This reminds me of the guy here in Portland that told the city their traffic lights were wrong and they fined him for not having an engineering license. I don’t have a degree, no license, or accreditation, yet I’ve worked for government contracts, medical software, and designed hardware for doctors. Would I then be sued for giving advice from my proven track record? I’ve never called myself an engineer yet most of my job titles say Engineer.

JoeAltmaier 5y ago

Licensing boards are for one thing - to issue licenses. If the government further wants to require a license for working on government project, fine. But to decide a license is needed for anything other than "advertising you have a license" is perverted. Some government official who wants to control people, not keep them safe and organized. Its all about power I guess.

rcgorton 5y ago

So what is their position on software engineers based in North Carolina offering opinions on Usenet/stackoverflow/other forums? Or even more aggregious, writing technical engineering papers? I do not follow their 'logic' here

blunte 5y ago

Of course it's corporate corruption of government that is driving this case. "he is an engineer at heart and speaks up when he sees people make what he believes to be engineering mistakes. He has written letters to state and county governments and testified before a county commission. But Wayne’s troubles began when he when he agreed to help his son, Kyle, a North Carolina attorney, with a case about a piping system that allegedly flooded a few local homes" If he were telling lies, he would be legally accountable to the individuals or companies that his lies harmed. That would probably be an easy case to bring against him to stop him from telling lies. But this approach of trying to silence him on grounds of not technically being an engineer shows plainly that he is telling enough truth that he wouldn't be accountable for lying and causing harm. Cases like this are probably common, although the methods of silencing vary from situation to situation. While the US may not be as corrupt as many other countries, it still has a significant amount which ultimately harms the general public and certainly harms the few individuals that find themselves on the wrong side of a corrupt authority.

mobilefriendly 5y ago
The ACLU has abandoned its defense of free speech in the US; I'm glad to see IJ taking up the mantle.
- GavinMcG 5y ago
  Earlier this week, the ACLU published this[0] article, "The Problem With Censoring Political Speech Online – Including Trump’s". More substantively, they recently filed a brief[1] supporting Americans for Prosperity (the Koch brothers' primary political advocacy group) fighting against a government demand for donor lists. That's just the stuff I found on the national website with a minute or two of looking around—I didn't even dig into what state ACLU groups are doing, and they do the bulk of litigation. Abandoned free speech they have not. [0] https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/the-problem-with-censoring-political-speech-online-including-trumps/ https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/the-problem-with-censo... [1] https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/prosperity-foundation-v-xavier-becerra-attorney-general-california-amicus-brief https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/prosperity-foundation-v-...

mcguire 5y ago

Two complaints: All of the articles I can find are copies of the IJ release. And the title is click-bait. It appears from the IJ's "details" (https://ij.org/case/nc-engineering-speech/)that https://ij.org/case/nc-engineering-speech/)that Nutt is a chemical engineer. ("Wayne Nutt spent over 37 years as a practicing engineer, mostly working for the DuPont corporation in North Carolina. In that time, he worked with a variety of different technologies and designed and built a variety of things, including pipes for transportation of fluid, while developing deep expertise in chemical engineering and technology.") He provided expert testimony on a water drainage issue. ("Wayne’s trouble started when he volunteered to testify as an expert witness in a case his son, an attorney, was litigating. The case involved a piping system in a housing development that allegedly caused flooding in nearby areas, and Wayne, who had designed plenty of pipes in his day, volunteered to testify about the volume of fluid that pipe could be expected to carry.") Then, "After Wayne testified truthfully that he was not (and never had been) a licensed engineer, the lawyers for the defendant threatened to report him to the North Carolina Board of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors. Wayne didn’t take the threat seriously; he wasn’t designing anything or building anything, he was just offering his opinion about something that might have happened in the past." Offering expert testimony appears to fall under the definition of "practice of engineering" (https://codes.findlaw.com/nc/chapter-89c-engineering-and-land-surveying/nc-gen-st-sect-89c-3.html https://codes.findlaw.com/nc/chapter-89c-engineering-and-lan...). "The practice of engineering in North Carolina for projects or testimony impacting the public in North Carolina requires that the individual and company must be licensed in North Carolina. ... Our Board considers that any testimony that requires engineering knowledge to adequately provide and to protect the public falls with the definition of the practice of engineering and requires a NC PE license." (https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/NC_Engineering_email.pdf https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/NC_Engineering_ema...) The court appears to have allowed him to provide the expert testimony, but the Board is doing what it does. There's not much to see here; no one except the IJ is saying anything about "he can't talk about engineering"---the topic in question is expert testimony and I don't think federal courts are going to regard that as some form of protected speech in this situation.

sQL_inject 5y ago

Nepotistic credentialism scribed into stone by bureaucrats and enforceable by jailtime. This is happening at a grand scale and is only hastening the cancerous growth of Cost Disease. Oh, you don't have a programming license? You aren't allowed to write C++.

kwdc 5y ago

We have news media and journalism specifically to investigate and hold politicians and government to account. Why would we not allow the same in engineering? Outrageous. Something definitely smells. Worth further investigation.

MiscIdeaMaker99 5y ago

This is a one-sided article written by the lawyers of the plaintiff. I don't care to know the rest of the story, so I don't have a worthy comment to make regarding the merits of the free speech argument in the article; however, professional licensing exists for very good reasons, and this article isn't a reason that it should all go away, as many folks here seem to have concluded.

xdmr 5y ago

A lot of people seem to be splitting hairs over whether this guy's testimony or report in the trial is or isn't "practicing engineering," and whether that means that he's therefore clearly in violation of the rules and should be punished, or whether this proves that professional licensing is evil and should be abolished. What's missing is the fact that the conduct in question happened in a courtroom. If I drive over a bridge and it collapses and kills me, I don't get to hire a lawyer and an expert witness from the afterlife and have them try to impeach the credibility of the bridge designer or demonstrate the unsuitability of his plans and, if I manage to convince a jury, I get to be resurrected. Since I can't do this, the state enacted some rules about what kind of qualifications the guy designing the bridge has to have. But in a courtroom, if I don't like this unlicensed engineer the other side wants to put on the stand, I can try to prove he doesn't know what he's talking about. I can hire my own engineer to help me come up with tricky questions to make a fool of him on the stand and maybe prevent him being accepted as an expert. I can cross-examine him with help from my own engineer to prepare. I can have my own engineer testify to rebut his claims. I have all sorts of options besides causing him to be threatened with violation of professional licensing laws. The point is that the professional licensing laws exist to protect people in situations like driving over a bridge. They do not exist to protect the public from the risk that unlicensed people may testify in court about engineering, thereby potentially producing injustice. This is because lawyers already exist to do this job, and are extensively trained and licensed to do it. That's why the lawsuit attacks the professional licensing laws as _overbroad_, not inappropriate in the context of certifying people to design bridges and that kind of thing.

ClumsyPilot 5y ago

Meanwhile Executives, presidents and ministers don't need to show competence in anything at all, and their decisions affect lives of millions