Here’s what keeps legal theorists in business: sometimes two well-established ideas come into conflict. We expect that people have the right to talk freely* and we expect our professionals to be vetted** before they practice.
Mats Jarlstrom was fined by Oregon for discussing issues involving traffic lights on the grounds that he was practicing engineering without a license. I’m not a lawyer, so I can’t comment on whether the state law makes sense. I do know that if his campaign to change traffic light timing is based on the rational review of empirical fact (the timing), then he’s working in an engineering manner whether or not he’s licensed in Oregon. And I certainly support his ability to say that he has an engineering degree whether or not he’s licensed.
In a way, his problem is the reverse of the one faced by licensed engineers when we see something we think is unsafe. We have a responsibility, based on our expertise and the responsibilities that go along with licensure, to say something even if we’re not involved. And that, speaking from experience, can be an enormous pain the neck.
* Add the usual caveats here about not threatening anyone, and not endangering lives, and so on.
** Including minimum requirements of preparation and licensing by the state, for example.
You must be logged in to post a comment.