Did you read the Board's complaint? At first the asked the Board to investigate the city even though the Board had no jurisdiction to do so. they advised him of this and also cautioned him not to advertise himself as an engineer, in accordance with Oregon's code. He agreed, but then went on to write to various government and media entities promoting his idea and promoting himself as an engineer, before asserting again to the Board that he was an engineer - the very same Board to whom he had given his assurance that he would not hold himself out as such.
He could have put the exact same information and proposals out in public, saying 'I'm not an engineer, but I believe I have come up with a great solution to this traffic problem' and he would have been fine. It's simply not true for you to assert that they're trying to censor his ideas.
No, he's not according to the violations cited in Final Order, page 6, section heading #14; in particular:
By reviewing, critiquing, and altering an engineered ITE formula, and submitting the critique and calculations [...] to members of the public for consideration and modification of Beaverton, Oregon's and worldwide traffic signals, which signals are public equipment, processes and works, Jarlstrom applied special knowledge of the mathematical, physical and engineering sciences to such creative work as investigation, evaluation, and design in connection with public equipment, processes, and works. Jarlstrom thereby engaged in the practice of engineering under ORS 672.005(1)(b).
By engaging the practice of engineering [...] without registration, Jarlstrom violated [laws]. [...] By again providing the public with his traffic engineering calculations for the modification of Beaverton's traffic signal timing, Jarlstrom again engaged in the practice of engineering and, specifically, the practice of traffic engineering. He thereby violated [laws] on a third occasion. By providing his publicly released traffic engineering calculations to the sheriff of the 20 county where he advised changes in traffic signals, Jarlstrom again purported to be authorized to engage in, and did engage in, the practice of engineering. He, therefore, violated [laws] on third and fourth occasions.It's quite difficult to read, and even harder for mobile users. It might be better to use > or asterisks for quoting.
For anyone else who was trying to read the quoted parts, here they are:
He's perfectly at liberty to [share the information]
No, he's not according to the violations cited in Final Order, page 6, section heading #14; in particular:
> By reviewing, critiquing, and altering an engineered ITE formula, and submitting the critique and calculations [...] to members of the public for consideration and modification of Beaverton, Oregon's and worldwide traffic signals, which signals are public equipment, processes and works, Jarlstrom applied special knowledge of the mathematical, physical and engineering sciences to such creative work as investigation, evaluation, and design in connection with public equipment, processes, and works. Jarlstrom thereby engaged in the practice of engineering under ORS 672.005(1)(b).
...and summarizing:
> By engaging the practice of engineering [...] without registration, Jarlstrom violated [laws]. [...] By again providing the public with his traffic engineering calculations for the modification of Beaverton's traffic signal timing, Jarlstrom again engaged in the practice of engineering and, specifically, the practice of traffic engineering. He thereby violated [laws] on a third occasion. By providing his publicly released traffic engineering calculations to the sheriff of the 20 county where he advised changes in traffic signals, Jarlstrom again purported to be authorized to engage in, and did engage in, the practice of engineering. He, therefore, violated [laws] on third and fourth occasions.
If "professional services or creative work" could be read as "services or creative work, either of which are done for money," perhaps it would be okay?
'As used in ORS 672.002 (Definitions for ORS 672.002 to 672.325) to 672.325 (Civil penalties), unless the context requires otherwise:'
It's terrifying because you are reading bits of it out of context and extrapolating incorrectly to the broadest scope imaginable. I perform some of the activities on this list on almost a daily basis just in the normal course of making things and being an artist (the old-fashioned variety slapping paint on canvas). I have exactly zero fear of ever being prosecuted for unlicensed engineering activities.
How you should be reading it: ORS 672.005 described things that an engineer does as part of their work. Then you go on to look at ORS 672.007 which talks about how
(1) A *person* is practicing or offering to practice engineering if the person:
(a) By verbal claim, sign, advertisement, letterhead, card or in any other way implies that the person is or purports to be a registered professional engineer;
(b) Through the use of some other title implies that the person is an engineer or a registered professional engineer; or
(c) Purports to be able to perform, or who does perform, any service or work that is defined by ORS 672.005 (Additional definitions) as the practice of engineering.
You are not going to get fined just for calculating the hypotenuse of a triangle in public. In programming terms, you're worrying about the value of a variable without considering its scope.
Forgot to mention that all emphases are added by me.
If the argument is "he said he was an 'engineer' and he isn't licensed", that's fine. And the Board's Final Report contains a lot of language establishing that, and for that he can be fined.
But the Board's Report goes out of its way to say that ORS 672.005(c) and ORS 672.002 define "practicing engineering" as quite close to just "calculating the hypotenuse of a triangle in public", and that just practicing engineering in this manner without registration is not allowed. Check Section 14 of the Final Report. It makes no reference to "purporting to be an engineer": it's "by [critiquing an engineering formula] and submitting the critique [...] to members of the public" [...he...] thereby engaged in the practice of engineering [...] specifically, traffic engineering [...and thus] violated ORS 672.020(1), 672.045(1) and OAR 820-010-0730(3)(c)".
If you tell people you are not a doctor, and you do doctor things, then there's no misunderstanding, and nothing to fine
But if you tell people you are a doctor (or let people think you are), when you are not, and you do doctory things, then there's trouble.
It seems reasonable to me that it requires both the misunderstanding and the potential to create public harm for it to be a crime/fine-able.
In your metaphor "doctor" is a protected term in many jurisdictions, so merely claiming to be a medical doctor is a crime. And practising medicine without a licence is similarly illegal, even if you make it clear that you're not a doctor.
But instead of pitching his idea as a simple concerned resident he went back to claiming to be an engineer a couple of months later. That's not a mistake because the issue had already been clearly explained to him. He's not a victim.
If he had merely submitted the "critique and calculations" for "consideration" as a concerned citizen, he would have not gotten a fine. Simply put, he called himself an engineer and suggested that public infrastructure be changed. In Oregon, when you're not licensed by the state, you can't use the title "Engineer", and you definitely don't want to use it while trying to suggest modifications to public infrastructure.
I'm not equating the two in terms of "I believe both situations are completely just"... but doing what he did is akin to a thief walking himself into the police station. The purpose of the Board of Engineers in most states is not to decide what is "good engineering practice" and what is "bad engineering practice", it's to regulate licensure and set the bar for who is qualified to be an "Engineer" in the eyes of the state. He mis-navigated the American system, for better or worse, and paid a fine that is meant to dissuade people from doing things like this:
http://laist.com/2016/01/30/fake_civil_engineers_may_have_bu...
I hear you, and agree that when he says "I'm an engineer", we have a certain set of laws that apply to that speech.
I'm saying there is another aspect which is the the crux of the reply-to-top-level comment to which I objected: that Final Report is saying "doing [math and stuff] on [public things] is engineering, and you did [math and stuff], so you're doing engineering without a license". I don't think my "the Final Report is saying..." is unfair: check the Final Report sections 8,9, and 10.
I bet there are a lot of confounding issues in this particular case, but, very narrowly, what I'm saying is that using publicly-available data and speaking (without saying "I'm an engineer") of applications of "special knowledge of the mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences" cannot be illegal or fine-able, yet this is pretty literally what sentence three of section 13 (Final Order, Page 6) says is happening.
Indeed there is a whole set of exceptions related to "Exception to application of ORS 672.002 to 672.325"[0].
You may be interested in ORS 672.060(6)(a and b):
(6) The performance of engineering work by a person, or by full-time employees of the person, provided:
(a) The work is in connection with or incidental to the operations of the person; and
(b) The engineering work is not offered directly to the public.
Indeed, this is one of the affirmative defenses that he tried using, but was rejected.
Basically, you can't just stop at a definition in law, you have to read the full law to know what the law says.
https://www.law.georgetown.edu/academics/academic-programs/l...
He can't unring that bell because he already accepted a warning (absent any fine or penalty) and agreed to abide by the Code on not calling himself an engineer and then repeatedly broke that agreement, so he doesn't get to keep selling his proposed traffic solution because of his demonstrated bad faith.
It's like someone who called themselves a doctor and turned out to have no medical qualifications being enjoined from wearing a white coat and a stethoscope and hanging around hospitals offering unsolicited medical advice.
"Jarlstrom is not now, and never has been, registered to practice engineering in Oregon, or any other state in the United States. Jarlstrom has claimed to be a Swedish engineer. However, engineering is not a regulated profession in Sweden. No licensure, registration or certification is offered or required to practice engineering in Sweden"
[0] - https://www.scribd.com/embeds/346354146/content?start_page=1...
You are mistaken: I told you in an earlier reply that the first linked document states he is not licensed to practice in any state.
As a simple example, if you have a faint and I ask you if you're all right, what you're feeling etc., that doesn't mean I'm practicing medicine without a license despite the diagnostic nature of my questions.
I mean, if he hadn't said he was an engineer to Licensed Engineers many times, I agree nobody would have bothered. But now that they've bothered, their justifications matter.
You are incorrect. See my other post with a link to the clear exceptions baked directly into the law.
If what you said were true, then he literally would not have had an affirmative defense to plead at all, which is plainly wrong as the final order specifically notes his pleading of 2 affirmative defenses.
You can find these analysis of those affirmative defenses by reviewing the sections of the final order starting at 19
"by [critiquing an engineering formula] and submitting the critique [...] to members of the public" [...he...] thereby engaged in the practice of engineering [...] specifically, traffic engineering [...and thus] violated ORS 672.020(1), 672.045(1) and OAR 820-010-0730(3)(c)".
I agree his affirmative defenses are inadequate, but I'm not taking issue with the analysis of his defense. I simply am pointing out the justification used in Paragraph 14 is concerning. ORS672.005(1)(b) is way too broad.
[0] - https://www.scribd.com/document/346354146/mats4#from_embed [1] - https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/672.007 [2] - https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/672.005
You could be right if that false claim hadn't happened. But it did, and everything subsequent has to be evaluated within that context. Think of the difference between global and local variables, and the sort of bugs you get if you ignore scope rules (I'm guessing you're a coder, ignore if that's not the case).
"I, JB Reefer, am God, command you to stop driving. I am the king of all engineers, president of space, etc etc etc"
and it doesn't matter. You really do get to say whatever the fuck you want in this country, as long as it doesn't cause direct harm to someone else. There's no "this doesn't apply to job title" caveat.
I doubt that these laws are going away any time soon. Perhaps modified as more and more influential people see "programming" as "engineering", but doubtful that they'll go away for things like civil/mechanical/electrical infrastructure.
[1] http://laist.com/2016/01/30/fake_civil_engineers_may_have_bu...
The Supreme Court disagrees.
Similarly, simply saying "i am an engineer" is obviously not a crime. Students do it all the time, despite not being licensed. Using it to lend credence to your ideas around traffic lights, however, may be a different story. I think thats the crux of the dispute.
There are more limitations but that's an easy and possibly counterintuitive example.
It's a reference to dicta in that case, which would be dubious to cite as meaningful even had Shenck not been overturned.
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...
https://www.popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-...
It's a meaningless saying that doesn't actually have any real bearing on the law or the first amendment.
Other examples besides claiming to be a doctor/lawyer while giving advice include: remarks that constitute credible threats to someone's life.
By the way, and appropriate to this thread, I am not a lawyer.
Another instance I can recount is here where a woman was banned from touching horses.
http://reason.com/blog/2017/02/17/woman-could-go-to-jail-for...
I don't think most software devs should require licensing, but they're not doing what I and many others would consider 'real' engineering. At least, their mistakes don't often have serious impact on people. We're not talking about that here though, we're talking about civil engineering.
Exaggeration never, ever makes a legal argument more convincing.