Federal judge finds state law governing who is an engineer violates free speech

In short the idea is we trust the PE's signature that everything is copacetic. In more modern fields like automotive, aerospace and software engineering that idea is laughable. Everything is about process, audit and testing.

This case essentially removes engineer from the list of recognized professions. That club now only belongs to the doctors and lawyers. Even hairdressers cannot call themselves such without state recognition.

He is an engineer as far as I am concerned (and time served as well as his quali):

Jarlstrom, who holds a bachelors of science degree in engineering from Sweden

I'm fine with forbiding speech regarding life/safety impact like shouting "fire" and protecting the use of PE for liability and public safety reasons, and letting anyone call themselves a hacker, engineer or whatever else floats their day. To be clear: there ought to be a level of professional rigor where lives are on the line, but otherwise it's caveat hiring manager.

Working in Canada where my degree was not certified, all the PEng people would get seriously uptight if I even said "I studied Engineering" or "I have a bachelor of Engineering".

yet there are defenders who will pop up with any threat to the licensing by citing extreme examples but most of this is to protect the businesses who both "train" to meet the licensing requirements as well as those who hire because it becomes an expensive business to compete in

His side of the story is here: http://www.jarlstrom.com/redflex/ . In short, the timings don't account for the time it takes for a car to _clear_ an intersection.

His lawsuit against the city's yellow light timings was dismissed because he failed to show standing. It is somewhat interesting that he took the tack of hypothetical damage as a pedestrian instead of a contested red-light ticket. Perhaps the ticket(s) that precipitated the research didn't satisfy the exact conditions of this challenge.

I wouldn't be surprised if he uncovered something involving the timing of traffic lights that the state engineers knew about, but never did anything about it since it increased the chance of driver violations ever so slightly, and, therefore, more sources of revenue.

It's not cynical if it's true, you know.

And doctors usually work very long hours too, suggesting there is still a shortage even with the immigration. But, I guess this keeps salaries high

Cosmetology, by contrast, is mostly aesthetic, and the risks that need managed are relatively simple ones, e.g. learning how not to cut or stab someone with scissors or razors, proper use of dying agents to avoid chemical burns, hygienic practices to prevent spread of lice and fungus, and other stuff like that. So long as you don't make those kinds of errors the worst you can do is leave someone looking not great.

What do they call people who drive trains in Ontario?

I agree, but this is an argument for newspapers, magazines, and websites to make, not for the state licensing board. Regulating the speech of politicians campaiging for office undermines the democratic process, as it allows those in power to control the speech of those with less power trying to unseat them.

This attitude is changing, especially as more schools get ABET CS programs, but old ways of doing things change slowly.

They have shown themselves repeatably to be neither trustworthy nor competent and thus have negative credibility. Software engineers have a reputation of being like cats - you don't herd them to an official standard, you lure them unofficially to something with 'tuna' and some may prefer chicken anyway.

I've waffled on this, and I'd be curious to hear input from others. On the one hand, software engineers are building systems which have incredible reach and impact. It's reasonable to want to ensure these systems are being built by people with some solid body of knowledge and skills.

However, software engineering as a field changes relatively quickly, and we hardly ever reach a consensus about the best way to do anything. It's often somewhat unclear to me whether we're making forward progress at all (because we keep inventing "new" ways to build the same things). And because software is in every kind of system, two very skilled and productive software engineers might actually have very few overlapping tools in their toolbox. Could we ever agree on what should be part of the official accreditation, and how long would it be good for?

Have you ever read books about that? There are multiple layers of awful ideas about software engineering, touted as best practice. It's a cesspit of idiocy. Too many morons are going around trying to say things about engineering practices for it to be possible to make a useful accreditation.

It would also end up being a negative hiring signal, like existing certifications and Master's degrees.

It would be a great negative signal. I love it.

(Talking about language here, not state regulation of professions).

There are employees at the company I work with great job titles like 'mathematician' and 'physicist'. But if the physicist is applying known principles (obscure ones about photon behaviour, but well-understood principles) to product development rather than blue-sky R&D, what is their actual job? - Given many people would think a physicist is a researcher. There's an argument that the job in question is actually 'physics engineer'.

If you can call yourself a horse, then it makes sense that you can also call yourself a doctor.

    Beckerman, in the 25-page written ruling, declared that
    Järlström may study and, communicate publicly or privately
    about his theories relating to traffic lights, as long as
    his remarks occur outside the context of any employment or
    contractual relationship with a governmental or other
    group that regulates traffic light-timing.

See United States v. Alvarez for a Supreme Court case that grapples with such issues. A man falsely claimed to be a veteran and a recipient of the Medal of Honor at a government meeting. He was prosecuted and convicted for this conduct. He appealed to the Supreme Court and won.

The guy would approach women in apartment parking lots, tell them they have a disease and he could “cure” them with sex, because he has been injected with the cure. He successfully convinced and had sex with multiple women, and he actually charged them $750 to boot.

As you might expect one of the charges was fraud...turns out men’s right to lie to women’s out being a doctor to get them into bed is constitutionally protected free speech.

It's incredibly annoying. I have relatives who have become completely swindled by this crap and regurgitate unscientific nonsense that their "Dr. Salesman" chiropractor prescribed. Blood-type diets, essential oils, overpriced transparencies to hide in rooms for their calming energy. Whenever I visit home I have to listen to this shit littered with Dr. as if it's legitimizing.

FML

So, obviously the issue is more narrow than you’re suggesting. You can’t for example say you’re a doctor when doing so would also constitute fraud.

In the US, laws restricting speech are generally unconstitutional unless the government can demonstrate both a compelling need to restrict it and the law is sufficiently narrowly construed to actually restrict only that speech which needs to be restricted for that need. In general, prohibition of self-appellations like engineer and doctor in commercial speech is considered constitutional.

In this case, the ruling found that the statute in question was broad enough to encompass more than commercial speech, and that the agency had repeatedly shown itself to believe that it did. Furthermore, it found that the use of the term "engineer," even in a commercial context, didn't inherently mislead people to believe that it referred to a certified and licensed engineer, and so the ban is overly broad. Note that if the terminology were to use specific accreditations, such as certified public accountant or registered practicing engineer, that line of argument would not work. The court concludes that only deleting the word "engineer" from two separate places in the law is necessary to conform with constitutional practice, so if the person in question had instead claimed themselves to be a "professional engineer", they would still be liable under the law.

If the law were written differently, then a ban on calling oneself an engineer (or doctor) would pass constitutional muster. It might even be possible to have a constitutional law that would prohibit Dr. Oz from calling himself Dr. Oz, although I do concede that it would be a difficult construction.

A law saying that you can't refer to yourself as a "judge" would almost certainly also be unconstitutional, but a law saying that you can't present yourself as a Federal judge is probably specific enough to pass muster.