Oregon Man Fined $500 for Criticizing Red-light Cameras

[Tinykong]

SO, If I go to school and get a degree in engineering work in the field for a number of years, then move to Oregon I cant call myself an engineer unless I register with the state?

You have to pass an exam and receive a license.

Depending on the state and what you're doing, you may or may not need a license. In my state, we can practice engineering without a Professional Engineering license provided that you aren't submitting plans or drawings to a public entity for permit/approval, or doing seal engineering work for public or private entities.

[Matchles]

SO, If I go to school and get a degree in engineering work in the field for a number of years, then move to Oregon I cant call myself an engineer unless I register with the state?

If you are licensed in another state you can call yourself an engineer, but you can't do engineering work till you are licensed in Oregon.

[IIamaKing]

If you are licensed in another state you can call yourself an engineer, but you can't do engineering work till you are licensed in Oregon.

Ok, SO, If I went and posted videos on Youtube showing... lets say engineering flaws in a bridge in Oregon, would I be likely to receive a similar fine? Based on the fact I do not have a license?

[Matchles]

Ok, SO, If I went and posted videos on Youtube showing... lets say engineering flaws in a bridge in Oregon, would I be likely to receive a similar fine? Based on the fact I do not have a license?

Well if you were out of the state you are out of the jurisdiction. However, in state, you could get a warning like this guy did informing you of the law, and if you continue to hold yourself out as an engineer for months afterwards (like he did), yeah you might get a fine.

[Xenryusho]

Maybe this is just a too mundane issue and the potential dangers of screwing with the red light cameras are too far removed. But imagine a situation where someone who went to medical school but isn't a licensed doctor reaches out to the media saying, "you know the way we do open heart surgeries is just too dangerous. I have found a revolutionary way to change the surgery so we won't lose as many patients." Are you willing to go under the knife on those sensationalist claims? Shouldn't the state have an interest in regulating that kind of claim to protect those that aren't as intelligent as you?

I have serious doubts you're a lawyer if you actually think this is even mildly comparable. Someone saying they have a revolutionary way to do heart surgery and proposing it is not going to put -anyone- under the knife, nor did this mans ideas about traffic cameras (which themselves are nowhere near comparable to heart surgery either) carry even the smallest risk of being haphazardly implemented without any kind of process or verification. And again, he is an engineer talking about something that is only tangentially related to engineering to begin with.

What would be more accurate is:

where someone whos worked as a surgeon but hasn't worked as one in oregon reaches out to the media saying, "you know the way you process new patients is inefficient and costly, Ive found several points where this can be alleviated heres some evidence in support of this analysis." Are you willing to allow experts who work in the field evaluate these claims and make a decision based off them? Shouldn't the state have an interest in haphazardly silencing others who are doing no harm nor have any chance to by proposing solutions to problems they see in their area of expertise?

The fact that you've been arguing for 120+ posts that the state should have the right to silence anyone from proposing ideas unless they explicitly register with that particularly jurisdiction makes me think you're not only not an attorney, but a poorly built AI trying to pass the Turing test by piecing together logic from /b/.

And even IFF it was exactly as you said with the heart surgery and all, then they're still not putting anyone under the knife because SOMEONE is proposing an idea. The parallel is so far removed from reality it's unbelievable.

[Matchles]

I have serious doubts you're a lawyer if you actually think this is even mildly comparable. Someone saying they have a revolutionary way to do heart surgery and proposing it is not going to put -anyone- under the knife, nor did this mans ideas about traffic cameras (which themselves are nowhere near comparable to heart surgery either) carry even the smallest risk of being haphazardly implemented without any kind of process or verification. And again, he is an engineer talking about something that is only tangentially related to engineering to begin with.

I have serious doubts you've ever seen a lawyer argue if you are doing nothing but screaming hyperbole here. He wasn't just proposing an idea, he admittedly claimed he was doing engineering work. My example is so over the top and yet a guy not being able to call himself an engineer is some grand violation of the First Amendment? Please.

Yeah there is some process to changing the timing of traffic lights. In some places it wouldn't take much more than the convincing of a city council with no expertise in the area. I'm sure the sensationalist media he was seeking could help with that. Then, if his algorithm is fucked up, it increases the likelihood of accidents. So no, it isn't too far fetched to give a parallel involving life and death. Public safety is the motivation behind the law. I'm sorry if you are incapable of seeing the safety issues involved in people claiming expertise that they do not have.

The fact that you've been arguing for 120+ posts that the state should have the right to silence anyone from proposing ideas unless they explicitly register with that particularly jurisdiction makes me think you're not only not an attorney, but a poorly built AI trying to pass the Turing test by piecing together logic from /b/.

I fucking love it. You've contributed zero input in the entire discussion. You wait till the thread has been over for a day or two and then pop in with some attack on me because... you don't like the side of the argument I'm on? The fact this is your first and only comment in the last couple of weeks speaks volumes about you.

[Forogil]

False, in the US, the earth is flat, the world was created 5 to 6k years ago, and climate change is a scam from China.

And if you try to prove that the earth isn't flat (but some other shape) in Oregon you will be charged with performing land surveying without a license (according to the same laws as in this case).

[Deleted]

SO, If I go to school and get a degree in engineering work in the field for a number of years, then move to Oregon I cant call myself an engineer unless I register with the state?

Yes, becuse engineer is a "protected" titel like a nurse, you do not want unauthorized nurse assist in a operation. What you can say I have a engineer degree from X and Y experience.

But it feel like they are not using the spirit of the law, he did not try to claim that he did have a oregon engineer license, only that he did have engineer education/experience.

[Aggrophobic]

Thought I should share something interesting that I saw.

No, he was fined for lying and pretending to be something he's not.

[crazyfool319]

That is a very dangerous area and in many jurisdictions could be seen as unlawful practice of law. You can't represent others in court, draft or choose legal documents, advise others of their legal rights or hold yourself out to be a lawyer. That is why many people preface a statement with "I am not a laywer..." (though that doesn't get people off the hook, even if they think it does) Hypothetical discussions about the law are fine. But you can't tell someone, "these are your rights, this is what you can or should do." You can say you should contact an attorney.

Fair enough... but then couldnt saying something as simple as "dont talk to the police without an attorney" be considered practicing law without a license? I know i am probably wrong, but shouldnt practicing law mean you talk money for it? I know you can represent yourself in a case, but thats a bit different. But if you could theoretically get popped for unlicensed practice for saying "you probably should fight this ticket" or something along those lines then i need to keep my fat mouth shut.

[brimdog]

Government bulling Citizens into obedience while unaffected sheep bleat agreements?
Nooooooooooooooo

[Matchles]

Fair enough... but then couldnt saying something as simple as "dont talk to the police without an attorney" be considered practicing law without a license? I know i am probably wrong, but shouldnt practicing law mean you talk money for it? I know you can represent yourself in a case, but thats a bit different. But if you could theoretically get popped for unlicensed practice for saying "you probably should fight this ticket" or something along those lines then i need to keep my fat mouth shut.

I don't think I could give you a bright line rule about what could or could not be said. There is a large grey area. For instance, people that should know better (law school students, paralegals and others who work in the legal community) would likely be held to stricter standard. If you took money for the advice, that would definitely cut against you. But it isn't a guarantee. Attorneys have a number of unpaid hours they should work in a year to fulfill their Pro Bono requirements. It'll also depend on the state because it would be governed by their statutes and local court decisions. Most tests would probably go along the lines of "did you create a false impression that you are an attorney" and if so, "did you gain a benefit from it (like money) or did they suffer a detriment (did the advice harm them)?" Everything you've mentioned is pretty mundane. Probably don't need to worry about it unless you start discussing strategies and the rights they have.

[Tijuana]

Thought I should share something interesting that I saw.

Oregon will get CRUSHED in court on this. They clearly do not have any right to squelch free speech. They might even get a lawsuit in civil court as well.

[Forogil]

Oregon will get CRUSHED in court on this. They clearly do not have any right to squelch free speech. They might even get a lawsuit in civil court as well.

The first order from the judge makes that plausible:
http://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/201...d-by-judge.pdf

Plaintiff Järlström may describe himself publicly and privately using the word "engineer" throughout the pendency of this litigation.

Plaintiff Järlström may study, communicate publicly about, and communicate privately about his theories relating to traffic lights throughout the pendency of this litigation as long as Plaintiff Järlström's communications occur outside the context of a paid employment or contractual relationship...

[Mistame]

Freedom of speech, not freedom from consequence.

His life nor liberty was not taken.

Actually, "freedom of speech" is literally freedom from consequences by government.

[God Save The King]

Actually, "freedom of speech" is literally freedom from consequences by government.

Why... why did you quote me from over a month ago?

[Mistame]

Why... why did you quote me from over a month ago?

Meh, it showed recent posts. Didn't look at the date you or the OP posted. You'll be OK.

[dextersmith]

Freedom of speech?

[God Save The King]

Meh, it showed recent posts. Didn't look at the date you or the OP posted. You'll be OK.

All good! I was just confused haha

[Forogil]

I know this is a bit of necro, but at least some stories have a happy ending, specifically:

1. He has the right to free speech,
https://ij.org/press-release/oregon-...iming-lawsuit/
The ruling is: https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/20...rm-opinion.pdf

There is no setting in which Oregon’s restriction on the word “engineer” comports with the First Amendment. That is why the law cannot constitutionally be applied to Mats Järlström or to the thousands of other Oregonians who are engineers but not “PEs.”

2. He was right, The Institute of Transportation Engineers have updated the formula.
https://engineeringrecruiting.org/bl...ght-all-along/

https://www.ite.org/technical-resour...nce-intervals/

I haven't paid the 150$ for the updated book, but I can see that it references: https://www.ite.org/pub/?id=21E65B05...3-C904EEF77729 by Oregon man.