573
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 367 points 10 months ago

For those curious but don't want to bother opening the link:

  • It was in North Carolina
  • The engineer was critiquing NC infrastructure
  • A NC agency said he needed a permit to criticize their infrastructure
  • The judge correctly determined that it was a violation of our first amendment rights
[-] Red_October@lemmy.world 52 points 10 months ago

Damn, and here I was really excited for the Forbidden Math lecture, like exposing why dividing by zero is actually a government coverup and how imaginary numbers are actually real but from a shadow dimension.

[-] fpslem@lemmy.world 30 points 10 months ago

The engineer was critiquing NC infrastructure

Well, good, a lot of North Carolina road infrastructure is dangerous bullshit, and members of the public shouldn't be stymied by state panels from pointing out that road deaths have been increasing in North Carolina, despite fewer vehicle miles traveled.

[-] ikidd@lemmy.world 14 points 10 months ago

Someone needs to be fired for this happening in the first place. Then the lawyers that took this to court need to be fired for not just bowing out the second it was filed.

[-] bobs_monkey@lemm.ee 10 points 10 months ago

A license, not a permit. Permits are typically issued for specific projects, while licensing is basically a state's way of saying you're credible in your field and a certified professional (usually in a leadership position, ie stamping approval on drawings), as well as in a knowledgeable position to take on legal liability.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] xkforce@lemmy.world 71 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

The title is a bit misleading. The state went after him because he doesn't have an engineering license in the state. I used to be a P&C insurance agent and one of the things that we were cautioned about was using our expertise in insurance outside of our job duties. There is a degree of liability there that you don't really want to be taking on. While on the job, you are covered by professional liability insurance if you make a mistake that causes harm to clients. Outside of your job though, the company you work for has no obligation to protect you as you aren't acting as an agent of that company on your own time. In this case, itd be a bit of a stretch to equate the two in that there isn't really a scenario where him talking about the infrastructure causes the state harm as far as a court would be concerned but I can kind of see where the case might have even gotten to court in the first place rather than dismissed off the bat as frivolous by the judge.

[-] Wwwbdd@lemmy.world 103 points 10 months ago

But he was just talking about engineering things on the internet, as far as I can tell. Doesn't feel like he should need a license for that

Seems like someone on the NC Board of Examiners and Surveyors didn't like being called out so they tried to bully him into stopping and it backfired

[-] admiralteal@kbin.social 67 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

You should check out what happened to Chuck Marohn in Minnesota: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2021/5/23/lawsuit

A fully-qualified engineer discussing the politics of engineering -- not acting in any way as an engineer -- fined, censured, and defamed in the public record by the state board of engineers. Because of a pretty obtuse technicality that absolutely no reasonable person would have interpreted as an issue and which only exists in the record thanks to actual perjury. All because he expressed sincerely-held beliefs as part of his political advocacy that could be interpreted as very embarrassing to the (incredibly incompetent) board. Things that even the board acknowledged were not related to the practice of engineering but that didn't matter to them.

These conservative organizations do not care about your civil rights. They only care about not being embarrassed. They will wield the powers of the state to silence anyone seen as a dissenter without shame or remorse. The guy in this article was very lucky indeed a federal court was willing to take the appeal. If they get any power over you, they will use it to get you to get you to bend to knee.

[-] roguetrick@kbin.social 5 points 10 months ago

He lost in state court because he signed an affidavit that said he hadn't referred to himself as a professional engineer when he didn't have a license, and the court found that he had done that and his federal lawsuit was dismissed about as soon as it was filed as not being significant enough to intervene in ongoing civil enforcement actions.

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2023/OPa221099-041023.pdf
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/minnesota/mndce/0:2021cv01241/194678/20/

[-] Medatrix@lemmy.world 17 points 10 months ago

I mean the fact that he had a license accidentally let it lapse then was able to get it back doesn't change the fact that he was and is a professional engineer.

[-] healthetank@lemmy.ca 10 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Yes but during that period he didn't have a license.

Without a doubt it's someone on a vendetta against him, but those regulations aren't weird, hidden ones.

If you call yourself a professional engineer, that's a protected title and you must actually be a professional engineer. Part of being a professional engineer is paying dues to the organization in your area.

[-] admiralteal@kbin.social 5 points 10 months ago

This is not true. I can call myself a doctor a lawyer or a cop or anything like that and it is protected speech so long as I am not attempting to perform the professional duties of that job.

It's free speech.

It's not up to the board of engineers to arbitrarily decide what isn't isn't the professional duties of a job and then punish people who say things they don't like. It's statutorily defined and this activity was not.

The courts made the entirely wrong decision which is very normal for the US.

[-] healthetank@lemmy.ca 2 points 10 months ago

This is not true. I can call myself a doctor a lawyer or a cop or anything like that and it is protected speech so long as I am not attempting to perform the professional duties of that job

It actually is true, unless MN has weird rules compared to other states. I'm not a lawyer, but the code here, sec. 326.02 seems pretty clear.

or to use in connection with the person's name, or to otherwise assume, use or advertise any title or description tending to convey the impression that the person is an architect, professional engineer (hereinafter called engineer), land surveyor, landscape architect, professional geoscientist (hereinafter called geoscientist), or certified interior designer, unless such person is qualified by licensure or certification under sections 326.02 to 326.15.

You actually can't call yourself a professional engineer if you're not - theres several lrgal cases where i am that are ongoing due to people calling themselves engineers while being realtors, for example, and trying to use the title to advertise (IE John Doe, P.Eng), which is not allowed.

[-] admiralteal@kbin.social 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

United States v. Alvarez is the relevant case law here.

There are tons of on-the-books statutes that are not in line with Alvarez. And we should presume they would fail in a full legal challenge if a full legal challenge to them were mounted. But not everyone has the resources or dedication to try and take something all the way to the totally-political, capricious SCOTUS.

[-] healthetank@lemmy.ca 2 points 10 months ago

Interesting! Thanks for sharing that. I found a Cornell Law paper breaking down the decision and how/what things could have changed the decision (ie what things the govt is allowed to ban despite the amendment)

[-] admiralteal@kbin.social 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

It's not the strongest decision, but I think it represents well how these identity claims intersect with free speech. That is, the law seems to tell us that a statement being false is not sufficient for it to be illegal per se.

Now, had Marohn actually been reviewing engineering specs or analyzing plans or other clearly-engineering activities during the lapse while identifying himself as a PE, then of course that would be fraud even if it was inadvertent. But, of course, if that had happened he would've checked the box admitting to it on his renewal. Paid the fine. Accepted whatever censure it resulted in. That's honestly a pretty routine licensure error. It's why the form specifically asks about it.

But failing to update his letterhead in political speeches made during a totally accidental lapse that was corrected in due haste and before he was even aware there were complaints does not make him a fraudster. You could claim that being a PE is what made people want him to deliver those speeches, but that's pretty flimsy -- first of all he WAS fully-trained, educated, and qualified as a PE. Not to mention he's the founder of a major advocacy organization and would certainly still be giving those speeches even if he intentionally stopped renewing the license, and would be legally in the right to do so (but yes, should change the "PE" on the letterhead to "former PE" or no claim at all).

And it means that the board are fucking liars for claiming otherwise.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] admiralteal@kbin.social 6 points 10 months ago

No he signed an affidavit which said he had not acted as a professional engineer during the time it was lapsed which was true. Because he hadn't done any engineering work.

The entire "representation" was just a title on a single slide of a PowerPoint presentation.

He lost in state court because the MBoE lied about the order of events and decided to "make an example" out of him. And the reason they decided to do that was 100% because they didn't like the content of his political speech.

And that's the point. These organizations will use and abuse their power to punish dissent. Period.

[-] roguetrick@kbin.social 3 points 10 months ago

The argument wasn't about a matter of fact, but a matter of law. He didn't argue against their matter of fact per the appeals court decision.

The ALJ heard arguments from both parties on their motions for summary
disposition. Marohn argued to the ALJ that the relevant statutes and regulations prevented
him from referring to himself as a professional engineer only while promoting or providing
engineering services. He also asserted that his conduct was protected by the First
Amendment. The complaint committee’s position was that Marohn had violated applicable
statutes and regulations by representing himself as a professional engineer during the time
his license was expired and by providing false information on his license applications. The
ALJ rejected Marohn’s statutory- and regulatory-interpretation arguments, declined to
consider Marohn’s constitutional arguments, and found that Marohn had violated Minn.
Stat. § 326.02, subds. 1, 3, by representing himself as a professional engineer while
unlicensed and Minn. R. 1805.0200, subps. 1(B), 2, 4(C), based on his statements in his
license applications. The ALJ therefore recommended summary disposition in favor of the
complaint committee.

[-] admiralteal@kbin.social 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

That's because the appeals process does not allow disputes over matters of fact. The lower court he did dispute the matter of fact. And multiple times offered to pay the fine and accept censure for the error if the factual recorded were amended to comport with what actually happened rather than being recorded in false terms as it was. But the MBoE wanted to defame him in the public record. It was their primary goal. So they refused to do so and kept the record fraudulent.

But the outcome was ALSO wrong as a matter of law.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[-] xkforce@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

I added to the comment to address this.

[-] topinambour_rex@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

He was testifying in front of a commission, about a bad designed drain, for a HOA, or similar.

[-] ook_the_librarian@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago

You're correct that the headline is misleading. He's not just posting in some forum. He is testifying as an expert. So there is a little more subtly.

I would like to add. He was not paid. He also was not certifying any designs as safe. You should not need to be a licensed expert to show faults in existing designs.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 34 points 10 months ago

Outside of your job though, the company you work for has no obligation to protect you as you aren't acting as an agent of that company on your own time

They can and will fire you for posting things they don't like on social media on your own time, whether you're right or wrong, though. With the justification that you ARE acting as a representative of the company.

If I had a dollar for every time someone got fired for saying anything remotely supportive about Palestine or criticizing cops for being bastards, I'd have enough to buy Boston.

load more comments (12 replies)
[-] bedrooms@kbin.social 13 points 10 months ago

The NC Board of Examiners and Surveyors claimed that this was punishable by a misdemeanor unless he obtained a professional engineer’s license from the state

Hard to judge, but from what's written in the article, the ban sounds stupid enough to me, an engineer.

[-] VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 2 points 10 months ago

This random person from the internet agrees.

[-] kbal@fedia.io 2 points 10 months ago

This random person from the internet agrees,

That random person from the internet makes an irrelevant aside suggesting your comment is invalid,

and THIS random person from the internet went WEEWEEWEE all the way home

[-] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 10 months ago

Seems kind of harmfully protectionist; people who know what they're talking about can't share what they know, except when paid and contracted to do so. That's just going to lead to a public that is more ignorant on the topic than they otherwise would be, and realistically it isn't possible for most people to consult an expensive expert every time they have to make a decision that expertise may be relevant to.

[-] sukhmel@programming.dev 6 points 10 months ago

So, just to be clear, if I have some experience with something I would better keep quiet about it or prepend any opinion with a huge legal disclaimer, otherwise I may be sued over someone listening to what I say, is that correct?

I may see how that could be reasonable with advices (and that's exactly why those come with "not an advice" disclaimer) but fail to see how that is reasonable in case of opinions or general statements however ridiculous they might be.

[-] Granite@kbin.social 6 points 10 months ago

P&C means property and casualty in case anyone didn’t know

[-] eclectic_electron@sh.itjust.works 63 points 10 months ago

The article is pretty short so it's hard to tell, but I know in other cases there can be a significant difference between whether or not you say you're an engineer when you make these claims.

The term engineer is effectively a trademark controlled by a state licensing board. They want to protect the word engineer so it's clear to the public when someone is speaking as a professional licensed engineer vs not. Overall, this is a good thing and a direct response to specific and numerous very bad things that have happened in the past.

However, this has also resulted in some very awkward situations because the word engineer has almost become a genericized trademark in that there are many people who have the word engineer in their job title but do not have or need a professional engineer's license.

Based on the fact the guy won the case, I'm going to assume he wasn't substantially misrepresenting his qualifications. The headline is very sensationalized though and the article is lacking any detail, so I don't know how relevant this little anecdote is but I find it interesting.

[-] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 26 points 10 months ago

In a lot of cases, the use of engineer as a protected title has been given up due to various reasons, with only professional engineer being protected.

And the title of this article is blatantly misrepresenting the case. The issue isn't talking about the math, but getting in that legal gray area where the public could think he is a professional engineer making these claims.

[-] derf82@lemmy.world 25 points 10 months ago

As a licensed engineer, you are overselling what it means to be licensed. We do not use it as a trademark. It is more a restriction on using it in making design decisions that could impact public health and safety, and in particular, approving plans for such designs.

Really only civil/structural engineers pursue licensing routinely (although a few other branches that deal with major construction, like HVAC/plumbing branches of mechanical engineering). The vast majority of engineers are not licensed, but so long as you at not practicing in one of those areas restricted by law and regulation, you are fine. And certainly offering opinions and criticism of the design decisions of others is never forbidden. This case was ridiculous

[-] ElectricTrombone@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Precisely this. I am an electrical engineer. I was told in school not to stress about the FE exam unless I was a civil engineer. Or I was planning on designing high power equipment. I guess am an electrical engineer technically but these days I also work as a software engineer as well.

[-] Vqhm@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I feel that engineer is shoehorned into a lot of job titles nowadays... But I also now work in software engineering. I have a degree in CS as well as degrees and certs in cybersecurity.

Should I need to be licensed by the State to discuss the lack of cybersecurity in systems?

If anything, my studies, and application of project management pay more benefits than my CS certifications and degrees. SMEs really lack the ability to explain to management how it costs more to screw around and half ass some fantastic plan than to, you know, just get minimum viable product going then integrate improvements.

Previously I worked with aircraft where safety is written in blood. Yet in software dev I still have a hard time convincing people to provide a software bill of materials even though it's required. It's still the wild west. Even when DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas termed "killware" only a few took notice.

I guess what I'm saying is that we care more about Netflix uptime than we care about if water treatment plants or infrastructure that could literally kill people if it fails insecure.

The problem is qualified people already built a lot of the systems that are either no longer secure or no longer up to the task post IoT and climate change. How do we admit that qualifications aren't the problem? The problem is lack of continued penetration, stress, fail safe, or regression testing!

[-] GladiusB@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

Sounds like something a word engineer would say

[-] PR3CiSiON@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

Is it? My tile is "Field service engineer", but I only have on the job training, and an environmental science degree. I know another guy with my title who has no degree. I know it's obviously a different job than a ME or EE, but still officially has engineer in the title.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Stern@lemmy.world 12 points 10 months ago

Man shoulda just ended every sentence letting folks know he anals then theres no confusion

IANAL

[-] piecat@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago

The issue comes down to how "sacred" the word engineer is.

Can I give you medical advice and call myself a doctor if I'm not licensed? Can I call myself a lawyer and give you advice without taking the bar?

Can I give my advice or opinion "as an engineer" if I'm not licensed?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 26 Dec 2023
573 points (97.8% liked)

Not The Onion

12304 readers
277 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS