Oregon Admits It Violated Free Speech Rights of Mats “I Am an Engineer” Jarlstrom

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
A state panel violated a Beaverton man's free speech rights by claiming he had unlawfully used the title "engineer'' and by fining him when he repeatedly challenged Oregon's traffic-signal timing before local media and policymakers, Oregon's attorney general has ruled. Mats Jarlstrom was fined $500 in 2014 for calling himself an engineer in an email to the board.

In April, Jarlstrom joined with the national Institute for Justice in filing a federal civil rights lawsuit against members of the state engineering board. The suit contends state law and the board's actions that disallow anyone from using the word "engineer" if they're not an Oregon-licensed professional engineer amount to an "unconstitutional ban on mathematical debate.''
 
And our society continues to lose its grasp on sanity...

In court what he did would be perjury, plain and simple. The man lied to government officials by misrepresenting his qualifications. He was NOT exercising free speech. To argue the red light cameras are bad is free speech. To say things that are empirically false when making a legal claim is entirely different.

Where are peoples heads at these days?
 
And our society continues to lose its grasp on sanity...

In court what he did would be perjury, plain and simple. The man lied to government officials by misrepresenting his qualifications. He was NOT exercising free speech. To argue the red light cameras are bad is free speech. To say things that are empirically false when making a legal claim is entirely different.

Where are peoples heads at these days?

I have no idea what you are trying to say. First, the man has a degree in engineering. He wasn't lying about anything, or misrepresenting his qualifications. Second, he was discussing issues with traffic light timing (short yellows) and the flow of traffic. It had nothing to do with red light cameras.
 
In court what he did would be perjury, plain and simple. The man lied to government officials by misrepresenting his qualifications. He was NOT exercising free speech. To argue the red light cameras are bad is free speech. To say things that are empirically false when making a legal claim is entirely different.

From the article: "Jarlstrom has a bachelor of science degree in engineering". He is an engineer. A person who earns their MD degree is a doctor. Whether they pass their state board or not, they can put "MD" behind their name and call themselves "Doctor" because they earned their Doctor of Medicine degree. Dude has an engineering degree. He's an engineer. Professional practice may be regulated by the state, but he earned his degree regardless.
 
This is what I was thinking of, he was right, the person in charge power tripped, and they tried to just shut him up.
The American dream!

Sounds like Oregon to me, I hate living next door to the social justice capital of the world. Port O weird is more like it. And to think, they would actually vote Kate Brown back into office...you guys should look up the John Kitzhaber stuff, it’s ridiculous.
 
From the article: "Jarlstrom has a bachelor of science degree in engineering". He is an engineer. A person who earns their MD degree is a doctor. Whether they pass their state board or not, they can put "MD" behind their name and call themselves "Doctor" because they earned their Doctor of Medicine degree. Dude has an engineering degree. He's an engineer. Professional practice may be regulated by the state, but he earned his degree regardless.

He's an electronics engineer. Pardon me, I guess I didn't realize that was the same as a civil or traffic engineer that makes him qualified to speak on such matters. This is akin to a Liberal Arts doctor running up to a hurt person exclaiming "I'm a doctor!". It has little value here.
 
And our society continues to lose its grasp on sanity...

In court what he did would be perjury, plain and simple. The man lied to government officials by misrepresenting his qualifications. He was NOT exercising free speech. To argue the red light cameras are bad is free speech. To say things that are empirically false when making a legal claim is entirely different.

Where are peoples heads at these days?

That's ridiculous and he would not have perjured himself by saying he's an engineer because an Oregon state licensed professional engineer is not the only definition of "engineer".

Quick, let's go arrest all the Microsoft Certified Systems Engineers in Oregon that have not registered as P.E.s
 
I have no idea what you are trying to say. First, the man has a degree in engineering. He wasn't lying about anything, or misrepresenting his qualifications. Second, he was discussing issues with traffic light timing (short yellows) and the flow of traffic. It had nothing to do with red light cameras.

Pretty sure I heard him on a local station yesterday, they were talking about yellow lights anyway. There is on in specific in a highly traveler area that is 4.2 sec instead of 4.5 sec yellow, that difference is enough to gather an extra like 300,000$ over a couple years for the city, and they won’t change it. His idea was to put a sensor on the traffic light, if someone is in the intercection it delays the yellow for .25 seconds or holds the other lights for .25 seconds, they also said that they wouldn’t look into it. Don’t remember if someone in his family got into an accident or what prompted him to look into this. Omg this is pretty funny though; a local rep titled “Socialist Candidate” (he’s like 18 years old I think) was running for a council position, his main agenda was to fix our traffic lights. The statement was something to the effect “We as (insert county) lose 8 billion(!wat?) dollars a year waiting at red lights, I would like to change that to stop killing the environment” 8 billion!!? I’m all for optimizing the commute, but that isn’t our entire budget for like 20 years duude! He didn’t win.
 
He's an electronics engineer. Pardon me, I guess I didn't realize that was the same as a civil or traffic engineer that makes him qualified to speak on such matters. This is akin to a Liberal Arts doctor running up to a hurt person exclaiming "I'm a doctor!". It has little value here.

No, that's like Oregon trying to fine someone with a Doctorate degree in History for practicing medicine without a license because they go by "Dr. Jones" and they gave someone first aid.
 
He's an electronics engineer. Pardon me, I guess I didn't realize that was the same as a civil or traffic engineer that makes him qualified to speak on such matters. This is akin to a Liberal Arts doctor running up to a hurt person exclaiming "I'm a doctor!". It has little value here.

But you're the Degree Engineer, obviously.
 
I have no idea what you are trying to say. First, the man has a degree in engineering. He wasn't lying about anything, or misrepresenting his qualifications. Second, he was discussing issues with traffic light timing (short yellows) and the flow of traffic. It had nothing to do with red light cameras.

Again, the man is not a civil or traffic engineer. This is outside his expertise. Perhaps I could more accurately state that he misrepresented that he would be a credible authority on traffic matters. Better?
 
He's an electronics engineer. Pardon me, I guess I didn't realize that was the same as a civil or traffic engineer that makes him qualified to speak on such matters. This is akin to a Liberal Arts doctor running up to a hurt person exclaiming "I'm a doctor!". It has little value here.
He was making a complaint, not testifying under oath as a court expert certified Oregon engineer.
 
He was making a complaint, not testifying under oath as a court expert certified Oregon engineer.

Duh. Read my original post. I said in court it would be perjury. That means I knew he wasn't under oath. He was still misrepresenting his credibility to government officials as an authority on the subject matter.
 
Duh. Read my original post. I said in court it would be perjury. That means I knew he wasn't under oath. He was still misrepresenting his credibility to government officials as an authority on the subject matter.

I would argue that the government officials were misrepresenting themselves as authorities on any subject matter.
 
He's not brain dead or a politician. I say that makes him qualified to file a complaint.

Who has said he isn't qualified to complain? For the second time, read my original post. I outright said his right to argue is free speech. Good lord.

You're conflating his misrepresentation of his credibility with his lawful right to file a complaint. Completely separate and I believe the man has every right to file any complaints they want.
 
Again, the man is not a civil or traffic engineer. This is outside his expertise. Perhaps I could more accurately state that he misrepresented that he would be a credible authority on traffic matters. Better?
Having followed this case from near the beginning, I can assure you this was within his expertise. In fact, anyone with basic understanding of physics and math could understand that he is correct.

Even the original creator of the rules for traffic light timings came out and backed this guy up.
 
Who has said he isn't qualified to complain? For the second time, read my original post. I outright said his right to argue is free speech. Good lord.

You're conflating his misrepresentation of his credibility with his lawful right to file a complaint. Completely separate and I believe the man has every right to file any complaints they want.
He could've written he's the pope, lord saviour, supreme engineer of all the things and a mother of five, and his complaint would still be valid and legal.
 
Then what's the problem? He's a citizen and that is all the authority he need to complain, AFAIK.

Again, where did I ever say this man has no right to complain? Nowhere, it hasn't happened. He has the right to complain, period.

My point? He should have just complained instead of presenting himself as an authority on the subject. "As a concerned citizen" would have been great and nobody would have complained. Instead he puffed up his credentials without specifying that his education wasn't really related.
 
You can join the Army. Be trained to be a doctor. Go to war and save 100's or thousands of injured humans and treat trauma. Come back to America. And not be allowed to be a practitioner. That's just regulations for ya.
 
Again, where did I ever say this man has no right to complain? Nowhere, it hasn't happened. He has the right to complain, period.

My point? He should have just complained instead of presenting himself as an authority on the subject. "As a concerned citizen" would have been great and nobody would have complained. Instead he puffed up his credentials without specifying that his education wasn't really related.

You don't seem to understand. All types of engineering have similar qualifications in a wide variety of topics, including mathematics and and sciences, which were important to the topic being discussed. So his engineering degree was related.
 
He could've written he's the pope, lord saviour, supreme engineer of all the things and a mother of five, and his complaint would still be valid and legal.

Not sure why you keep on as if I'm trying to say the man has no right to complain.
 
He's an electronics engineer. Pardon me, I guess I didn't realize that was the same as a civil or traffic engineer that makes him qualified to speak on such matters. This is akin to a Liberal Arts doctor running up to a hurt person exclaiming "I'm a doctor!". It has little value here.

I love when people realize they are completely fucking wrong, but instead of accepting it and learning, they opt to double down instead.
 
You don't seem to understand. All types of engineering have similar qualifications in a wide variety of topics, including mathematics and and sciences, which were important to the topic being discussed. So his engineering degree was related.

No I'm quite aware that there is an engineering core curriculum. I'm clearly speaking about the specialty.

If the topic is so simple then he shouldn't need to puff up his credentials. If he wanted to present real authority as a subject matter expert he should have done civil engineering instead of electrical.
 
If someone tries to convince me of something mathematical and tells me they have a degree in Women's Studies, well, I wouldn't put too much credence into what they're saying. For anything.

If someone tries to convince me of something mathematical and tells me they have a degree in engineering, I'd lend them some credence. No, their specialty may not be directly applicable to the matter at hand, but their training and background would lend some added significance to what they're trying to get across. That's all this guy was doing. "Hey, I've looked at this. Here's what I've found. I'm an engineer." Instead, a bunch of Women's Studies majors are trying to make what he did into a crime.

I hope he sues them and gets awarded a fortune...and that the a-hats who misused the power of their office to try to silence the dissenter should go to prison. And lose their taxpayer funded pensions.

Repercussions should be applicable, even to our overlords.
 
No I'm quite aware that there is an engineering core curriculum. I'm clearly speaking about the specialty.

If the topic is so simple then he shouldn't need to puff up his credentials. If he wanted to present real authority as a subject matter expert he should have done civil engineering instead of electrical.
At the same time, stating "I'm an engineer" *does* lend more credibility to it, and that's the point. It's not just some Joe Schmoe off the street who's complaining because he got a red light ticket. It's someone who not only sees a problem, but is motivated and knowledgeable enough to actually investigate, draw conclusions, and substantiate them. This is basic physics, and stating "I'm an engineer" is effectively the same as saying "I understand the principles, and I've done the math."
 
I love when people realize they are completely fucking wrong, but instead of accepting it and learning, they opt to double down instead.

Completely wrong about what?

I've been accused of saying the man has no right to complain. Check the thread, I never said that. I agree he has every right to complain.

I did take issue with him over representing himself as a SME. Big difference. Pretend he was on the witness stand. Imagine the prosecutor saying "So Mr. Jarlstrom, what you're saying is that you're an electrical engineer? Yes. So then it would be fair to say you're not a traffic or civil engineer? Yes."

To me this is an issue of credibility. I do not feel this man presented himself in the most accurate, credible way possible. Normally its not a big deal. In court it is. This wasn't in court (again people have acted like I said it was - go check) but it was arguing a point with government officials.
 
I hope he sues them and gets awarded a fortune...and that the a-hats who misused the power of their office to try to silence the dissenter should go to prison. And lose their taxpayer funded pensions.

Repercussions should be applicable, even to our overlords.

But they are not. Even if he sued and won, the people in power would not be effected, rather that money would come from the tax payers. That is the shitty part about anything that government might be at fault for.

...Pretend he was on the witness stand....

No.
 
Duh. Read my original post. I said in court it would be perjury. That means I knew he wasn't under oath. He was still misrepresenting his credibility to government officials as an authority on the subject matter.


Soooo if you don't have a Political Science degree you can't complain about the government because you aren't qualified? The guy did some math and figured out what they were doing. He's a citizen of the city and allowed to make a formal complaint based on his observations and backed it up with math that apparently they couldn't dispute.
 
Completely wrong about what?

I've been accused of saying the man has no right to complain. Check the thread, I never said that. I agree he has every right to complain.

I did take issue with him over representing himself as a SME. Big difference. Pretend he was on the witness stand. Imagine the prosecutor saying "So Mr. Jarlstrom, what you're saying is that you're an electrical engineer? Yes. So then it would be fair to say you're not a traffic or civil engineer? Yes."

To me this is an issue of credibility. I do not feel this man presented himself in the most accurate, credible way possible. Normally its not a big deal. In court it is. This wasn't in court (again people have acted like I said it was - go check) but it was arguing a point with government officials.

What people are objecting to is that you're saying "in this hypothetical situation that didn't happen, he would be a criminal" - it's irrelevant, speculative and assumes way too many things. Further, you seem not to be skeptical of the appeal to authority through arbitrary credentialism and some people might even say you support such views. That's your right, but his original complaint is based on math and physics which can be proofed yet his critics are acting like it's "just his opinion". Nobody wants to impeach his numbers or show their work, they just want to say he didn't have the right to make the calculations in the first place. That's not how this works, that's not how America works.

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/...-am-an-engineer-in-an-email-to-the-government

And yet, the engineering board in Oregon says he should not be free to publish or present his ideas. Tuesday, Järlström and the Institute for Justice sued the engineering board in federal court for Violating his First Amendment rights.


"Mats has a clear First Amendment right to talk about anything from taxes to traffic rights," Sam Gedge, an attorney for the Institute for Justice, told me. "It's an instance of a licensing board trying to suppress speech."




If someone tries to convince me of something mathematical and tells me they have a degree in Women's Studies, well, I wouldn't put too much credence into what they're saying. For anything.

If someone tries to convince me of something mathematical and tells me they have a degree in engineering, I'd lend them some credence. No, their specialty may not be directly applicable to the matter at hand, but their training and background would lend some added significance to what they're trying to get across. That's all this guy was doing. "Hey, I've looked at this. Here's what I've found. I'm an engineer." Instead, a bunch of Women's Studies majors are trying to make what he did into a crime.

I hope he sues them and gets awarded a fortune...and that the a-hats who misused the power of their office to try to silence the dissenter should go to prison. And lose their taxpayer funded pensions.

Repercussions should be applicable, even to our overlords.

Why don't you ignore their degree and check their work? It's MATH, not a medical opinion, it's either right or wrong and it's not based on what degree you're holding.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top