575
Federal court decides in favor of retired engineer told by state to not talk about math in public (www.wect.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world
39 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 2 years ago (6 children)

It isn't about being fired for a viewpoint.

Something that would happen a lot on some engineering forums is that someone without any experience would ask if something looked structurally ok and provide a photo. Now, if a PE said it looked ok but something happened to the building and the person was hurt, there may be a liability problem for the PE.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago

    Yeah, but he DOES have the necessary experience to know and he's pointing out that there IS a flaw, so your hypothetical doesn't apply to the actual case here.

    They're trying to use his license being temporarily lapsed to keep him from embarrassing them with the knowledge he's had the entire time.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago

    Your forum example is different from this.

    The forum poster is soliciting advice, for the purpose of continuing use of the construction. The poster is relying on the engineer for their safety.

    If a neighbor looks over the fence, and tells you "looking good Joe!", it won't create any sort of relationship between you, and if it is in fact not good the neighbor isn't liable. You weren't relying on their comment.

    The engineer is publishing an open letter about work that somebody else completed, that they were never involved in. They aren't being relied on to approve the continued use of the construction. This is the same as lawyers blogging dissenting opinions on rulings or commenting on legal proceedings in areas they haven't passed the bar.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    I can't see that anything like that would get anywhere if there was no compensation or contract entered into for that advice.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    The point is that you dont need comp or contract.

    This is the same principle that spurs the IANAL tag people slap on to any and all posts that discuss a legal situation. Because if you let someone think you are speaking from an educated authority, you are offering them a level of expert approval or advice. And thus, any misled person can blame you for making them think you were speaking from experience and knowledge.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    If you're working for or licensed by a government agency in the USA, it gets more complicated. Your 1st ammendment rights carry more weight since firing you or pulling your license is the state taking action against you.

    Obviously they can still punish you if you're bringing "disrepute" to your employer/professiom: bigotry, obscenity, misrepresentation, ethics violations, etc.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent