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.

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.

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