Occupational Licensing

Minnesota Threatens To Fine This Engineer for Calling Himself an Engineer

Charles Marohn called himself an engineer in speeches and articles while his license was temporarily expired. The First Amendment protects his right to do that.


The head of an urban policy nonprofit is suing Minnesota's engineering licensing board after they threatened him with fines and other sanctions for calling himself an engineer in speeches and articles while having a temporarily expired engineering license.

Charles Marohn, a licensed civil engineer since 2000 and president of the advocacy group Strong Towns, argues that the board is violating his First Amendment rights by policing his description of himself as a professional engineer in connection to his policy advocacy.

The sanctions he's being threatened with, he contends, are retaliation against Strong Towns' activism, which is critical of spending more money on large infrastructure projects typically beloved by professional engineers.

The state's licensing board "is making findings that I have been dishonest and misrepresented myself to the public, that I made false statements. These things are not only unfounded, they are just deeply, deeply damaging," says Marohn. "I'm not practicing engineering. This board has no authority to regulate what my speech is and what I'm out saying."

Marohn's problems began in February 2020. That's when a South Dakota engineer, David D. Dixon, submitted a complaint to the Minnesota Board of Architecture, Engineering, Land Surveying, Landscape Architecture, Geoscience, and Interior Design (AELSLAGID) after reading an article authored by Marohn that was critical of traffic engineers on Strong Towns' website.

Marohn's website biography said that he was a "Professional Engineer (PE) licensed in the state of Minnesota." According to Dixon's complaint, he searched Marohn's name on the AELSLAGID website only to find that his license had expired in June 2018.

"Based on that, I sought to determine whether this reference on [Strong Towns] was an isolated reference, perhaps an oversight, or part of a deliberate effort to mislead the public," wrote Dixon in his complaint, which notes that Marohn is also described as an engineer in "about the author" page of his February 2020 book and in materials for a 2019 conference at which Marohn was a speaker.

"Mr. Marohn talks about being a policy expert, the type that reads law and ordinance. It is not reasonable to assume that Mr. Marohn was not aware that use of the term Professional Engineer, PE, or other similar representations while not licensed, is a violation of law," Dixon says in his complaint. "I urge the board to investigate as it sees fit, and to send a clear message that frauds of this sort are not tolerated."

Marohn received notice of this complaint from AELSLAGID in July 2020, over a month after he'd already renewed his expired license.

Minnesota engineering licenses expire on June 30 of even-numbered years. Licensees are required to proactively renew them.

AELSLAGID sends out courtesy notices reminding people of their need to renew their licenses. Marohn has been a licensed engineer in the state since 2000. In 2016, however, he moved without informing the board, and thus missed the biennial renewal reminder that was sent to his old address in 2018.

Then in June 2020, a Strong Towns co-worker brought it to Marohn's attention that his license had lapsed. Screenshots of Slack messages that Marohn submitted to AELSLAGID show him reacting with surprise at the news. He renewed it the same day and also paid a late renewal fee of $120. His lawsuit notes that he'd also completed the required continuing education hours during the time his license was expired.

"It's kind of silly. I don't go out and practice as an engineer. I'm a writer. I do public speaking, and I do writing. I do advocacy work. I don't sign plans; I don't do construction drawings," Marohn told Reason in July 2020. He said at the time that he didn't expect the board to sanction him over an obvious bad-faith complaint.

That prediction has turned out to be wrong. In November 2020, AELSLAGID informed Marohn that their investigation had determined that disciplinary action was warranted.

Specifically, the board demanded he pay a $1,500 fine and sign an order admitting he'd violated Minnesota law by using the title of "professional engineer" in his writings and speeches while his license was expired. They also wanted him to admit he'd lied to AELSLAGID when filling out his license renewal application, part of which requires the applicant to certify they haven't improperly represented themselves as a licensed professional.

Marohn objected to the idea that he'd engaged in any willful deception. In a written response to AELSLAGID, he also said that under his reading of Minnesota law, the restrictions on the use of the title "professional engineer" only applied in circumstances where people were actually trying to practice engineering.

He thus declined to sign off on the board's particular sanctions.

That led to a March virtual hearing with AELSLAGID's five-member Complaint Committee. Here too, Marohn says that the primary concerns of the board were about his use of the term engineer in connection to his advocacy work.

One member of the board, he says, expressed concern that his description of himself as an engineer in talks he gave at Google, The American Conservative, and TEDx might make people more likely to listen to his ideas, thus endangering public health and safety.

That notion "is ridiculous because it's not like I was any less qualified during the gap in my licensure," says Marohn. "I was just talking; I'm giving a speech."

Following the hearing—and in an effort to put the whole thing behind him—Marohn told AELSLAGID that he'd agree to a $500 civil fine and would sign a "stipulated order" admitting that he called himself a professional engineer while his license had lapsed.

In exchange, he wanted the board to acknowledge in writing that he'd renewed his license before being made aware of any complaint against him and that they drop their accusation that he'd made "untruthful" and "false" statements.

In April, AELSLAGID's Complaint Committee declined that settlement. So last week, Marohn sued AELSLAGID in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota arguing the board's sanctions against him violate the First Amendment's Free Speech protections.

"The board's enforcement against [Marohn] raises some serious First Amendment concerns," says Sam Gedge, an attorney at the Institute for Justice.

The government does have the ability to restrict unlicensed people referring to themselves as professional engineers to prevent fraud, Gedge says. But that would only apply to a very narrow set of circumstances like commercial advertising.

"The board is concerned that this gentleman referred to himself as a professional engineer in books, and speeches and communications like that. In that context, the government has no business policing the truth or falsity of speech," he tells Reason.

The Institute for Justice has litigated similar cases before. In 2017, it sued Oregon's engineering board after it fined Beaverton man Mats Järlström for referring to himself as an engineer in letters to the board, despite not having a state engineering license.

"The government licensing boards are the new censors in America. They're aggressive, and time and time again it becomes clear they just don't believe the First Amendment applies to them," he says, adding that AELSLAGID "seems to be in need of suing."

NEXT: A 135-Year-Old Maritime Law Is Stopping Cruise Ships From Returning to Alaska

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. This isn't like the guy in Oregon who was timing traffic lights. I think he's going to lose this one. In most states, calling yourself a PE when you're not is a violation of licensing laws.

    I can't speak to MN, but this would probably get you fined in PA.

    1. It may be a mitigating factor as he wasn't practicing, but he was wrong to call himself a professional engineer as that is not a generic term.

      If you call yourself a C.P.A. while not actually certified, you'll get into trouble too. And rightly so. While saying you are an accountant is not a problem.

      These is a big difference between the the generic term for an activity and a legal term that claim a certified profession standing that is not covered by a generic freedom of speech claim.

      1. Jimmy Kimmel claims to be a comedian.

        1. Jeff and white Mike claim to be libertarian

        2. But he doesn't claim to be certified by a "State Board of Comedians."

          There is a difference.

          Sorry, but the guy in this story is on thin ice.

          If he wants to claim, "I am a graduate engineer (possibly but not necessarily specifying school and graduating year etc) and that "I have practiced engineering and have been [in the past] licensed to practice in "X" state[s]..." he's OK.

          But, when he says "I am [now] licensed to practice in "X" state..." he has stated a falsehood and is at fault.

          On the other hand, (and there always is "another hand') quibbling over a bloke failing to keep his website up to date sounds mighty petty to my. Possibly a polite note to correct the error would be a more appropriate response than threatening to send armed agents to his door*.

          *If you think I'm exaggerating, keep in mind that that is exactly what threatening criminal penalties is.

          1. When he made the statement on the web site it was true. He was under no obligation to update the web site when it became untrue. In the meantime he still had every right to say he was a professional engineer, because he was one. The only way your argument works is if, while his license was expired, he had said he was a licensed engineer. But he didn't.

            And even then, there'd be no mens rea.

        3. Or claiming to be an immigrant when you're an illegal alien?

      2. What if you call yourself a female and you have a penis and y chromosome?

        1. You run for governor.

      3. >It may be a mitigating factor as he wasn’t practicing,

        I'm not a lawyer, but this is what I was thinking.

        I'm a commercial pilot. My medical has lapsed, but I'm still a commercial pilot and not violating any law because I'm not getting paid to fly.

        That said, MN law may be unreasonable. You're not performing engineering services under the guise of a PE, you're not defrauding potential customers, etc. I'd be interested to know how it turned out if tested in court.

      4. Wrong. There is no general exception to the first amendment for false statements (See U.S. v. Alvarez). More specifically, falsity alone is not enough to justify restrictions on speech. There must be more. I can call myself a C.P.A., Engineer, or doctor all I want if doing so isn't being done for gain or another fraudulent purpose.

      5. Youre lying.

        He cant do so while doing engineering etc services in the Public realm.

        Political activism doesnt require a OE license.

      6. "Professional" and "engineer" are both ordinary English words, neither of which is synonymous with "licensed". Thus "professional engineer" is a generic term, just like "professional accountant". The problem with "certified public accountant" is the "certified" part, if the person does not in fact hold a current certificate.

    2. What if he identifies as an engineer? What if his personal pronouns include M.S.Eng.?

    3. Geᴛ $192 hᴏurly from Gᴏᴏgle!…Yes this is Auᴛhentic since I jusᴛ gᴏᴛ my fiᴏst payᴏuᴛ of $24413 ᴀnd this wᴀs ᴊust oᴊ a single ᴡeek… I hᴀve ᴀlsᴏ bᴏughᴛ my Rᴀnge Rᴏver Velar righᴛ ᴀfᴛer ᴛhis pᴀyᴏuᴛ…Iᴛ is reᴀlly cᴏᴏl jᴏb I hᴀve ever had and yᴏu wᴏn’ᴛ fᴏrgive yᴏurself irwetrf yᴏurreeᴀᴏ nᴏᴛ ᴄheck iᴛ…...READ MORE

    4. He is a professional engineer. "Professional" doesn't mean "currently practicing". He's qualified, and that doesn't depend on him having a license. The state can stop him practicing without a license, but it can't stop him saying what he is. So if there's such a purported law it's unconstitutional.

      Further, even if he weren't a professional engineer at all, and his self-description were a deliberate lie, so long as he told his lie only in the context of public advocacy rather than attempting to practice the profession the state can't stop him, just as it can't stop him falsely claiming military service or awards.

  2. To be fair, we call Fauci a "Doctor".

    1. "Fauci ... attended medical school at Cornell University's Medical College where he graduated first in his class with a Doctor of Medicine degree in 1966." That is doctor enough for anyone.

      1. Given his research and his compleate lack of medical knowledge Cornell may have to have its medical school disbanded.

        1. Fauci's problem is not lack of medical knowledge. Fauci's problem is avarice. He has a financial interest in pumping of COVID-19 and wanting people to believe it was caused by bats and not misadventure in a process and center he has financial interest in.

      2. Originally, I thought better of pointing out that we still call Mengele a doctor too. Your point made me reconsider.

        1. If Dre puts out a bad album is he on thin ice too?

          1. Mengele and men under his direct command as murderous Nazis killed some 15-20,000 people. Under Fauci's leadership as a public health official, Cuomo killed 12,000 nursing home residents. When, in your job as a public health official fighting a pandemic that's only killed ~3M people worldwide, your mismanagement numerically parallels the deaths caused by people who liquidated Jews for fun in a World War that killed 75M people worldwide, your involvement/culpability *should* be questioned.

    2. Jill Biden too. OR ELSE!

    3. Jekyll...

    1. Civies had a lot of women in their engineering program. Plus, they got to make a concrete canoe with chicken wire and cement. Everyone knows that EEs are the engineers with the biggest brains.

      1. As an ME grad i begrudgingly admit EE is probably the toughest.. though I don't have enough knowledge of what the chemical engineers had to go through to know where they rank

        but everyone knew the civil engineers were the bottom of the barrel. 'Sidewalk engineers' was the term of endearment we used.

        1. "industrial engineer" is pretty low too

          1. Multiple schools of engineering at my University, the industrial engineers were pretty open about the fact that they wanted an engineering degree without having to take any of the harder theoretical science and math courses.

            1. Where in this pecking order do "software engineers" fall?
              I call them programmers if they are any good.

              1. Software engineers are just above civil as they are a dime a dozen. Hardware engineers however are indespensible. In terms of EE the dificulty pecking order is
                1. EM/RF engineer
                2. Hardware engineer
                3. Power engineer
                4. Analog engineer
                5. Software

                1. Yeah, 'Software Engineer' generally covered all the ground between EEs and MEs in terms of knowledge, rigor, discipline, respect, or whatever. Not generally as, uh, intellectually adverse as CEs or IEs, but not necessarily as disciplined as EEs or IEs. SEs generally have greater latitude, e.g., spend hours generating vaporware, duct taping together terrible kludges, and fixing systems in motion. Of course, this was back in the day when UI "wasn't a thing" and Web design was arguably done cheaper and more effectively/creatively by "amateurs".

                  1. necessarily as disciplined as EEs or IEs

                    EEs or MEs, I should say. Much easier and more flexible to fuck up and fix running software than it is to fuck up and fix running hardware.

        2. Mechanical Engineers build weapons.

          Civil Engineers build targets.

        3. My ex-wife used to ask, "Why do you and your friends call yourselves "civil" engineers? None of you have any manners."

        4. Chemical engineers do it in packed beds.

          1. God is a civil engineer, who else would run a sewer system through a playground

        5. As an EE, I consider Chemical and Mechanical to be equally difficult. The extra math to cover discrete systems (electrical) does not add that much difficulty. Fields corresponds to fluid dynamics and stress and strain tensors. We all need some programming knowledge, which leaves computer system internals, which is voluminous but not difficult. It probably corresponds to mechanical's materials properties and chemical's advanced chemical interactions.

      2. I just checked...turns out EEs are also the least personable, most sexist, most arrogant and most socially maladapted. It’s true because ‘everyone’ said so. Or it could be you’re just a jackass that doesn’t understand the concept of a TEAM.

    2. One winter my engineer friends decided to get together and have an igloo building contest across all of the disciplines me v's ee v's civil v's nuke, etc. I don't remember who won, but I do remember the Civils igloo colapsed

      1. The last time we had a contest like that, the civil engineer's submission was a scale model replica of the Hornberg at Helm's Deep.

      2. CLEARLY the best test. I mean it’s not like civil engineers designed a 110 story building that survived a catastrophic airplane impact allowing scores of people to escape prior to the WTC collapse.

    3. Lots of CE haters...have fun living in your own filth.

  3. amazing thought about the engineer

    1. Awesome comment from an online yoga teacher trainer, licensed or not.

      1. Incredible response from a guy claiming to be named Rich.

  4. The First Amendment protects his right to do that.

    What's that? Up in the sky? Is it a bird? A plane? No! Step aside 1A, S230 has come to save this poor man from the entrapments of free speech.

    "The government licensing boards are the new censors in America. They're aggressive, and time and time again it becomes clear they just don't believe the First Amendment applies to them," he says, adding that AELSLAGID "seems to be in need of suing."

    Oh wait, people thinking they have rights and petitioning their government for redress of greivances? They've discovered S230's kryptonite!

  5. "The board is concerned that this gentleman

    Whoa, phobe... slow down. He identifies as an engineer, but there's nothing in the article that makes it clear he identifies as a "gentleman". Without announcing pronouns, this is a yuge assumption.

  6. It is a likely a picayune enforcement of the rule in context, but he did refer to himself as a licensed engineer in Minnesota at a time when he was not. Also, he should have realized without having to be told that his licensed expired in the fourth year after renewal with a two year cycle.

    I am not sure how the First Amendment protects against an untrue statement.

    1. Are sanitation engineers licensed by the state or county?

      1. Sanitation engineers do not design things that can cause mass deaths if they fail.

        1. Are you sure?

        2. An neither did this man while his license was not active.

    2. It's a professional license, not a speech license. Unless he said he was an engineer as part of an engineering contract, he's in the clear as much as any Dad (or Mom) who dons a 'Professional Grill Master' apron on Memorial Day weekend. 'In context' is what the accused/plaintiff says it is, not the other way around.

      1. As I said, I think it is picayune, but as devil's advocate, why did he feel the need to mention being a professional engineer if his status was irrelevant to his speech.

        1. Given the lack of clarity on exactly what he said and when, custom, or even just conteporaneously (in)accurate at the time of publication is easily justifiable.

          Moreover, he made a good faith effort to renew the license prior to being notified *and* pay the fine for the lapse and claim. That, IMO, clearly speaks to the idea that AELSLAGID isn't trying to prevent him from perpetrating fraud but is overtly trying to punish him criminally for his speech.

          FOE was making a joke, but Fauci hasn't seen a patient or performed a surgery in how long? And Marohn's claim to anything policy or contract-wise was far more tenuous. I don't see how Marohn would be guilty and (e.g.) Lenore Skenazy wouldn't be guilty of being an unlicensed childcare practitioner.

        2. "As I said, I think it is picayune, but as devil’s advocate, why did he feel the need to mention being a professional engineer if his status was irrelevant to his speech."

          Because it told the listeners, correctly, that he knows what he's talking about. It lent his words authority that they would not otherwise have had. That, after all, is exactly what the complaint against him alleged. And it's true; what's not true is the idea that a lapsed license somehow negated that authority.

    3. "he did refer to himself as a licensed engineer in Minnesota at a time when he was not. "

      No, he didn't. He referred to himself during that period as a professional engineer, not as a licensed one.

      "I am not sure how the First Amendment protects against an untrue statement."

      Easily. There is no exception for false statements. See the "stolen valor" case.

  7. TEDx might make people more likely to listen to his ideas, thus endangering public health and safety.

    Nobody should be allowed to have more than 2 TEDx talks in their playlist. Common sense regulation of the assault presentation problem is required.

  8. The professional licenses are written into law in each state. The rules aren't just flippant they are real and they have real authority to police them. I think this case is pretty ridiculous myself as there was no practice going on but nevertheless most states have issues if you called yourself licensed in their state and you are not. MN is a wanky dem leftie state in government so they like Oregon are probably more hard ass with it.

    He may very well lose on 1st amendment grounds here.

    1. If he had not represented himself as being currently licensed in the specific state, there would be no hook at all for this. It is well known that professional engineering licensing boards are jealous about the licensed engineer designation, the ethics continuing education courses pound on that relentlessly, which is why I do not buy he did not expect them to make a stink over this.

      1. Again, 'Thoughts On Building Strong Towns, Volume I' isn't a technical manual and was published in 2012, when he was a licensed engineer. Volume III isn't a technical manual and was published in 2017, when he was a licensed engineer. If it's the same fucking bio across the website and 3 of the 4 books, case closed. Especially, if he re-upped and agreed to pay the fine/back fees.

        The idea that he did something outside of a civil charge of fraud that requires some manner of exceptional criminal punishment specifically violates the 1A. Even the fraud requires proof of harm.

    2. Exactly.

      He cannot claim a license he does not have.

      He can still call himself an engineer.

      1. I’m a licensed engineer in every state, see how easy that was. Thank god for the first amendment.

      2. Again, 3 of the 4 books published were published when he was a licensed engineer. If the publisher/editor pushed back a printing date and went with the same bio without informing him, how is that his fault? Especially if he personally offered good faith reparations for the mistake/transgression?

  9. I agree that the licencing and the policing of the licencing is retarded he is kind of pulling a John stewert.
    Him "I'm a professional engineer"
    State "your bullshit licence wasn't renewed"
    Him "well I'm not a practicing engineer I don't sign plans, I am a writer, speeker, and avocate"

    1. But he is pulling a John stewert

      1. *Again*

        Him: Book 1, website, I'm a licensed engineer.
        State: Yup.
        Him: Book 2, website, I'm a licensed engineer.
        Him: Book 3, website, I'm a licensed engineer.
        Him: Book 4, website, I'm a licensed engineer.
        Troll: No you aren't!
        State: Damn right you aren't, you owe us!
        Him: Sorry, here's what I owe you. Please, cease and desist.
        State: Not good enough!


        Plenty of Libertarians: Sounds like a clear case of fraud to me. The 1A doesn't apply. The state was right.
        Plenty of other Libertarians: See, we need S230 to protect us from trolls!

        Liberty FTW!

  10. >>The head of an urban policy nonprofit

    mmm hmm. always nagging.

  11. I guess capitalization is everything here. I'm a professional engineer because I get paid to do a job with "engineer" in the title. But I guess I'm not a Professional Engineer as I have no credentials or degrees that say so.

    1. Pretty much. Engineers in the government bend over backwards to try and force the "professional engineer" on people similar to lawyers saying you need the bar association. It's about protection, and control and has nothing to do with skill as an engineer.

      1. There is a bit of guild protectionism going on but the ostensible justification is that a licensed professional engineer is held professionally responsible for documents that he approves and is a certified expert.

        1. And it libertopia it would likely still exist in some form, but as a private certification, required by insurers.

          1. Which is pretty much how such issues are dealt with in the UK and most of Europe.

          2. We carry insurance. A lot of it. And annually must attend liability training or our rates go up (further).

        2. Funny, every engineer I know is responsible for the documents they sign off on. I know many engineers who were fired for incorrect critical information both in the "pe" and not pe groups.

          1. The professional engineer who is the responsible individual is personally liable for any errors made by the people working under him on the project, and only PEs can be responsible individuals for signing off on construction documents.

  12. Is Dr. Jill a licensed Doctor?

    1. Us, but not as qualified as Dr Phil, Dr j, Dr Dre, or Dr pepper

    2. An Ed.D is a doctoral degree, thus she's a doctor. She can call herself a doctor (title). She cannot represent herself as a medical doctor (license).

      1. Ed. D... the weak sister of REAL doctorates. PhD, JD, MD, DO, VMD, etc... Sorry if I missed any.

  13. Can Mr. Trump be sued for claiming to be the rightful President of the United States of America?

    1. Which he is.

      1. Sure he is

        The president of the republic of Mar A Lago.

        1. After he leaves that position do you think the Democratic Party members of the Mar A Lago congress will attempt to impeach him? I’ll hang up and listen.

    2. Ask the licensing board.

  14. My dog is an officially Licensed Dog. Any complaints?

    1. I'll see you in 2 years at this comment when his license expires.

    2. I have a license for my pet fish Eric

      He is an halibut.

      1. You must be a Looney!

      2. That, sir, is a dog license with the word “dog” crossed out and the words “gold fish” scribbled in in crayon!

  15. I am withholding judgement until I find out what trains he was driving.

  16. The original complainant fits the “new PE” stereotype. The professional way to have responded was to contact the engineer and not be a dry rat and run to the MN PE Board. And the compromise offered seemed reasonable. He was a PE in good standing and his licensed lapsed. He renewed and will be in good standing provided he give them a pound of flesh.
    When working for a state and reviewing designs I caught that an engineer’s seal misspelled his name. I notified him. Not the PE Board.

    1. Yeah, concern troll raises concern to state agency. Libertarians supporting S230 to protect platforms from legions of trolls waiting to release tides of frivolous litigation reveal preference for state harassing good faith content creator on behalf of trolls.

  17. He didn't just "claim to be an engineer," his website claimed that he was a "Professional Engineer (PE) licensed in the state of Minnesota." This was a falsehood since, in fact, his license had expired in June 2018.

    It is one thing to complain about "Professional licensing" issues, it is another thing to complain about one's right to claim things which are not, in fact, true.

    1. Yep. Those are two different things.

      And both of them are protected by the 1A as long as they don't involve a 1A exception like fraud, or libel or true threat. None of which apply here.

    2. Was the website, specifically updated by him or with his knowledge, updated after 2018? Or is this a case of "concerned parties" picking up a book published when he was licensed and claiming he's a fraud because his license expired?

  18. This is not a1A issue.

    State Law controls here.

    He can call himself an engineer under PE rules unless hes not licensed and does so in regard to work in Public which requires Registration.

    Working for a Think Tank does not require a PE.

    These PE boards are Nazis. Retaliatory.

    I told them in WA to go jump when they objected to just filing with the State for a corporate name. And they did go get bent for I caught them in deliberate deceit.

    The ID PE board caused a serious problem for INL when they made up the rule that on certain nuke projects the PEs had to have been on project from the start.

    1. This is not a1A issue.

      State Law controls here.

      Not even superficially true. 10A stipulates rights not defined in the BOR fall to the states. 1A happens to be defined in the BOR. Whether state licensing supercedes the 1A in a quasi/non-professional sense is a very valid question, especially if the accused faces criminal charges.

      What's to stop the criminalization of unlicensed virologists' speach over licensed healthcare professionals? Climate scientists over geologists and botanists?

      1. State law may stipulate who can can't get licensed and what job they can have (even then, within 14A and other limits) but what that license does/does not allow people with or without a license to say is very squarely a 1A issue.

  19. "Libertarians": Section 230 is needed to reinforce the 1A and protect platforms from concern trolls.

    Also "Libertarians": State agency, fraud, licensing... concern troll is right, good faith content creator is wrong, 1A doesn't apply. Guilty of criminal fraud.

  20. https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/status/1204211293189820416?s=19

    Time to start talking about the now infamous "white empiricism" paper, written by a black woman who is a physicist with a dual appointment in gender studies. This paper, in a feminist journal, is a doozy. This will be relatively long thread, so buckle up.


    1. James Lindsay, not eating bugs @ConceptualJames
      Dec 9, 2019

      The first sentence of the paper asks who is "allowed" to be an observer in physics and who is "fundamentally denied the possibility." This is asinine. The answer is obviously anyone is allowed and no one in this day and age is "fundamentally" denied the possibility.

      The Laws of Physics *fundamentally deny* black people the ability to observe physics. I'd love to see the number of white supremacists making this argument professionally/publicly in the field let alone scientifically. AFAICT, She's the first person to assert, even in bygone eras, that Black people are barred at a fundamental physical level from observing physics. Moreover, making the assertion, it's not clear how Black or White people would or should change the laws of physics. Assuming we can't change the laws whole cloth, a separate but equal 'black physics' would seem to be the next most actionable solution. Maybe "import" some black physicists from Africa to do her job better than she can.

      1. It did used to be the case that women couldn't publish scientific papers. Marie Skladowska had to marry a scientist and get him to co-sign the papers to get them published, and she earned a couple of Nobels.

        Now, can blind people be "observers"?

  21. Whadafuck! This is unbelievable. BTW, how are you doing guys. Make sure to visit: best 10 inch tablet under 150

  22. If you have a degree in engineering you are an engineer. I am a Systems Engineer but I am neither practicing nor licensed. I do not call myself a professional or licensed engineer by I still earned the degree. This is more about the state making money and raising a barrier to completion than anything else. Michael Crichton, who wrote Jurassic Park, was a doctor. Being a successful author did not erase his educational history.

    1. "If you have a degree in engineering you are an engineer."

      If you do engineering for a living you are an engineer. My grandfather was an engineer as a civilian employee of the Army Corps of Engineers before he was drafted for WWII, who worked on planning the re-routing of railroads and road-roads around the construction of dams. No engineering degree, though.

  23. But Jill Biden is still a doctor, right?

    1. Being a doctor is one of those things that goes with earning a doctoral degree, which she has done, so...yes.

  24. This sort of thing is why Microsoft stopped certifying systems engineers and started certifying systems experts. MCSE meant one thing when I was certified in Windows NT 4.0 and something else when I was certified in Windows 2003.

  25. You may also get away with calling yourself an engineer if you drive locomotives for a living, for historical reasons.

  26. Just another stupid law in Minnesota where the Democrat party essentially has single party status largely due to voters in the cities of Minneapolis, St. Paul and to a lesser extent Duluth. The rest of the state are more or less more evenly divided between the two major parties.

    The Democrat politicians are indeed prone toward subjecting the citizens to authoritarian laws. Essentially forcing citizens to live as the Democrat party chooses instead of citizens having the freedom to choose for themselves.

    The incident with George Floyd that occurred in Minneapolis was in a city that has been completely dominated by the Democrat party (other than one Green Party council member) and has been for decades upon decades. There have been zero Republicans in power in Minneapolis other than an occasional council member once a decade.

    If a engineer retires and stops renewing their occupational license, can they be subject to lawsuits if they mention to their group at a coffee shop or lodge that they are an engineer?

    The whole notion is stupid. If they graduated from an engineering school they hold a degree period. A bunch of government bureaucrats should have no bearing over the term engineer. Maybe I can be charitable to the government bureaucrats and let them enforce the term "Government Licensed Engineer", but not the term "Engineer".

    In jest, perhaps these same government bureaucrats should be required to purchase a license for being a bureaucratic jerk with a steep price 😉

    1. "The Democrat politicians are indeed prone toward subjecting the citizens to authoritarian laws. Essentially forcing citizens to live as the Democrat party chooses instead of citizens having the freedom to choose for themselves."

      Do you somehow not have the freedom to choose to live in Minnesota or not live in Minnesota?

    2. "The Democrat politicians are indeed prone toward subjecting the citizens to authoritarian laws. Essentially forcing citizens to live as the Democrat party chooses instead of citizens having the freedom to choose for themselves."

      This is not at all limited to politicians of that particular brand.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.