10 ms·
Fed court rules for retired engineer told by state to not talk about math
- IronWolve 3y agoWILMINGTON, N.C. (WECT) - Chief Judge Richard Myers ruled on Wednesday that the state violated the First Amendment when it told retired engineer Wayne Nutt to stop expressing his opinions about engineering without a state license
- GabeIsko 3y agoI remember this, so ridiculous. Can't believe it took thos long for the trail to go through.
- joe_the_user 3y agoSo this isn't Charles L Marohn, the founder of Strongtowns.org but he got a similar treatment. https://www.strongtowns.org/supportreform https://www.strongtowns.org/supportreform
- renewiltord 3y agoBecause of cases like this and https://ij.org/press-release/oregon-engineer-wins-traffic-light-timing-lawsuit/ https://ij.org/press-release/oregon-engineer-wins-traffic-li... I have the opinion that Professional Engineer is a title on par with Microsoft Certified Support Technician. It sounds like a dumbass certification.
- bardworx 3y agoExcept an Engineer is liable for their work. However, these cases go too far because it’s one thing to speak about something and another thing to do. https://www.nspe.org/resources/professional-liability/liability-employed-engineers#:~:text=As%20a%20general%20rule%2C%20when,and%2For%20the%20individual%20engineer https://www.nspe.org/resources/professional-liability/liabil....
- axoltl 3y agoThis has everything to do with the way the US constitution was designed and nothing with certifications.
- renewiltord 3y agoYeah, thank god for the US constitution. It'll keep these half-wit certifications from damaging us.
- sircastor 3y agoI think whats happening in these cases is someone in office gets annoyed that someone else is being critical of them, or their work, or making them look bad. So they lean on the levers they have to make these problems go away. I live in the city where this traffic light mess happened and to me it's an embarrassment that someone tried to use the law to strong arm this guy into shutting up. The certifications are (ostensibly) there to make sure the people who are doing the work are qualified to do it - a protection against scammers and fraudsters doing shoddy engineering work and endangering people. If instead the powers that be uses it as a tool to silence people, it becomes simply a corrupt access point to power.
- phkahler 3y agoIt's not a dumbass certification. When briefly looked into it last millennium, you'd best be a recent engineering student whose up on some calculus and physics and I don't recall what. But it also seemed geared toward civil engineering, and in many places large construction projects do have to be signed off by a P.E. But if we had to throw away everything designed by regular ME, EE, and SWEs without a PE involved, we'd be in the technological dark ages.
- thewanderer1983 3y ago[flagged]
- vkou 3y agoYou do realize that this case predates COVID by almost half a decade..?
- thewanderer1983 3y agoNo I had just read the link provided and assumed it was 2023 given the article date. Upon reading the full brief I'm now aware of my mistake. Thanks for pointing it out.
- perihelions 3y agoSecurity from these kinds of abuses isn't strong enough. This guy's defense was free, courtesy of a public interest group [0]; but litigation is an unaffordable non-option for most people. You're fighting government agencies: people with infinitely more resources than you, and who fear no personal consequences if their judgement is wrong. (Or if they're just being vindictive). [0] https://ij.org/press-release/federal-judge-hands-free-speech-victory-to-retired-engineer/ https://ij.org/press-release/federal-judge-hands-free-speech... ("IJ is a public interest law firm. We represent clients free of charge in cutting-edge litigation defending vital constitutional rights.")
- ksherlock 3y agoAlso, Paul Tappel vs Washington state. https://www.cairncross.com/blog/ch-news/engineer-wins-groundbreaking-case-in-superior-court-of-washington-for-thurston-county/ https://www.cairncross.com/blog/ch-news/engineer-wins-ground...
- monero-xmr 3y agoInstitute for Justice is an excellent non profit and all donations are fully tax deductible, if you are looking for some year end donations. They take up fights for the common man that when properly fought to conclusion affect far more people. A great organization
- epgui 3y agoWhat does this have to do with talking about math? Title is rather misleading.
- vkou 3y agoIt doesn't. Professional engineering is as much 'talking about math' as performing legal services is 'talking about words'. Both need a license if you're doing it for a living. Neither needs a license if you're just shooting the shit, and don't try to put the profession's weight behind you. In this case, though, this was closer to political, rather than professional speech, and ended up protected.
- equivocates 3y agoLawyer here. Tbh, legal services is a lot of talking about words.
- bumby 3y ago…in conjunction with a ethics oath and a duty to public, no? So “talking about words” is a subset of a larger requirement.
- whats_a_quasar 3y agoThe headline isn't accurate. The suit was about whether the retired engineer could offer testimony as an expert witness in a lawsuit without a professional engineering license. Notably, the dude had worked as a chemical engineer for decades but never got a PE license because it wasn't required in his industry. So he was a legitimate expert. The North Carolina Board of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors tried to block him from giving testimony because he had a license. The court ruled that his expert testimony was first-amendment protected speech and that the state couldn't block it on the basis of not having a PE license. The suit is about licensing requirements for expert testimony in a lawsuit. Not about talking about math in public. The opinion is here: https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Nutt-v.-Ritter-opinion.pdf https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Nutt-v.-Ritter-opi...
- vkou 3y ago> The headline isn't accurate. The understatement of the century. It would be like calling someone trying to practice law without a license to be 'A restriction by the state from talking about words.' The reason this was upheld by the court was because he was giving public testimony, as opposed to rendering a professional opinion for a client (Which would have been absolutely been under the purview of the relevant licensing board).
- resoluteteeth 3y ago> The understatement of the century. It would be like calling someone trying to practice law without a license to be 'A restriction by the state from talking about words.' > The reason this was upheld by the court was because he was giving public testimony, as opposed to rendering a professional opinion for a client (Which would have been absolutely been under the purview of the relevant licensing board). If he was was giving testimony that was protected by the first amendment and not attempting to work as an engineer, saying "It would be like calling someone trying to practice law without a license to be 'A restriction by the state from talking about words.'" seems even more misleading than the headline since he wasn't actually attempting to do something analogous to unauthorized practice of law
- 3y ago
- rcbdev 3y agoIn my home country of Austria it's easy to distinguish a federally licensed engineer without forbidding the use of that word for people who are not licensed. A licensed engineer may put the title "Ing." in front of his name (e.g. "Mr. John Doe" becomes "Mr. Ing. John Doe") in communication, everyone else can still call themselves an engineer without issue but are not allowed to use that specific issued title in front of their name. A similar solution could have been found here, where people who are licensed can use a suffix like "CE" with their name.
- ekianjo 3y agoFederal licensing does not mean that the dudes in question know what they are talking about. Titles and papers are, at the end, only titles and papers. If you live long enough you meet enough clowns with PhDs.
- rcbdev 3y agoThere are liability questions attached to formal qualification. A company that sends out unlicensed / untrained staff to fix something will have a harder time convincing a judge that they did their due diligence if something goes wrong. I am not saying this is good or bad, just that it is legal reality in parts of Europe.
- ekianjo 3y agoSure, you get papers for reasons, obviously because regulations want you to have papers.
- razeh 3y agoSomething similar is brought up in the decision —- the licensing board could have had the licensed engineer's stamp their reports as a way of marking them as produced by licensed engineers. That the board just tried to shut Nutt up instead is one of the reasons they lost.
- ajb 3y agoWhat a stupid regulation Licensing regimes have a valid purpose: protecting those who have to rely on qualified engineers, when they calculate and advise that something is safe and fit for purpose. Restricting those who raise concerns that something is not safe or fit for purpose is the opposite.
- toasted-subs 3y agoPlaying devil's advocate, but telling a jury information as if you are an expert when you are not is something to be careful of. Not saying you need credentials but it's difficult for outside disciplines to know if somebody knows what they are talking about.
- sbuttgereit 3y agoYes, and having credentials is no guarantee that you know what you're talking about. The licensure boards themselves will sometimes warn you that a licensee's credential is in no way a guarantee of any sort of quality and you need to apply your own judgement in assessing the person's qualifications. This makes sense... At the end of the day all the licensure boards can really tell you is if they licensee passed a test and if they've had a history of complaints.
- toasted-subs 3y agoYup, I've had doctors prescribed medications which caused issues. When I looked into it myself there was publication after publication of people taking the medication and having the exact problems I had. Scary as fuck, especially when one doctor threatened to lock me up if I wouldn't take them. Sick and disgusting behavior.
- ajb 3y agoI get your point, but an expert witness in a trial is not usually solely relied on. Normally the other side also has an expert (as was the case here) and the opposing lawyer has the opportunity to question an expert about such things as whether they are licensed. However it's true that there are cases where such an expert might be solely relied on, for example they might be brought in by the judge. That happens in family court here, where a judge might appoint a neutral expert to evaluate a child's situation, and indeed there have been complaints that such experts were not sufficiently qualified or regulated. In that case, I would agree that licensing is desirable.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- pfdietz 3y agoAs is often the case, it's well worth your time to read the judgment. They go through the various ins and outs and explain the legalities.
- nraynaud 3y agoagreed, I read the thing (without following any reference), and Common Law court orders are generally quite ok to read out of context, the procedure itself is explained in the text.
- matt3210 3y agoLicense? What’s that? — CS engineer
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- seanw444 3y agoAs it should be. Be gone licenses. Return reputation and references.
- nraynaud 3y agoOr even targeted certifications, I would not be opposed that the people writing code for nuclear power plants would have to pass a certain training + test before doing so. It doesn't remove anything from other people. I'd take as an example the welding industry, there are bajillions of domains, with various requirements depending on what's at stake. There are some interesting forces at play, some domains do 100% weld testing, so they can recruit non-certified welders, because they would see the problems, generally they have a 3 strikes system, others would not take the risk and want to see certification, and some underwater welders have to pass a welding test immediately upon entering the water (then the crew pulls the coupon out, cut it and gives the ok), before really diving and doing their task, every day.
- bumby 3y agoThe vast majority of engineering is done under industrial exemptions so licenses don’t apply anyway. The main concept is mitigating risk, and there are multiple ways to skin that cat.
- bumby 3y agoThat’s easily games as well, though. Bernie Madoff was able to screw over a lot of people based largely on his reputation. While bad, at least that was “just” money and not something safety critical.
- akg_67 3y ago
- nraynaud 3y ago[flagged]
- dukeofdoom 3y ago[flagged]
- heads 3y agoThe thing I worry about with expert witness testimony is that if you assume a spherical cow then you can make all sorts of logical deduction work in your favour. Something feels fundamentally uneasy about an expert bringing of supposedly rigorous scientific facts to only one side of a court argument. Cases that come to a court are based on much fuzzier, human condition concepts like “did they mean to do it?”, “was it in the heat of the moment?”, and “did they know what they were doing was wrong?”. Even more so when it comes to the sentence which is handed down. I think it’s also the same sort of queasiness I feel when I see a paper that states that an exoplanet has butterflies due to the presence of a certain kind of Nitrogen molecule in its atmosphere. The science of the molecule detection is bang on but the inferred conclusion is not.