Sure you can. You can make a legal requirement that somebody has to be licensed to sign off on things that require the license without fining for the use of the word. Imagine that you're an engineer in Germany, you go to Oregon and somebody asks you what you do for a living. You reply with "I'm an engineer" and get fined because you're not licensed in Oregon.

In an oddly mirrored version, up until about 12 years ago it was illegal for someone with a PhD from outside the EU to use the title "Dr." in Germany, without going through specific paperwork to get permission to use that title.

http://htor.inf.ethz.ch/blog/index.php/2008/11/06/you-can-al... quotes a Washington Post piece:

> At least seven U.S. citizens working as researchers in Germany have faced criminal probes in recent months for using the title “Dr.” on their business cards, Web sites and resumes. They all hold doctoral degrees from elite universities back home

A NZ PhD holder in Germany could get in legal trouble until at 2012 - http://www.stuff.co.nz/editors-picks/6783089/Germany-goes-fo... .

You easily can, by being more strict about what constitutes the use of the title of engineer.

Exactly: sign off on civil works plans: licensed. Charge for advice related to:: licensed. Everything else: not.

I really don't understand this backing of the state here.

There is a vast gulf between stating one is an engineer, which many people are, and that one is a PE.

Reminds me of zero tolerance rules at schools, where adults claim that they can't understand the difference between two very different things.

> I really don't understand this backing of the state here.

You're just letting your pet peeves color your perceptions. I'm not backing anything here, I'm pointing out that if you're licensing the title of engineer then it makes sense to protect that license and therefore penalise people claiming the title without being licensed.

> There is a vast gulf between stating one is an engineer […] and that one is a PE.

In Oregon, before this lawsuit, there was not.

> Reminds me of zero tolerance rules at schools, where adults claim that they can't understand the difference between two very different things.

Yes, your comment also reminds me of people refusing to understand basic concepts.

The simple point was that Oregon's position was foolish. You keep pointing to Oregon's position as if it makes any sense. When one sees a bad government policy used improperly you don't usually state "But the state says so, so I guess it's just the way it is".

It's a bad position and this case is an example of why it's a bad position.

You stated that "If he claimed to be an engineer (which he acknowledges) and the state claims the title for licensing (which it did) then you can't enforce that licensing without some sort of penalty."

Of course you can. He didn't build bridges for pay, which is the type of engineering the law is clearly about. He just stated that he was an "engineer".

But yes, I'm the simplistic thinker, for pointing out that shades of gray exist in your black and white definition of things.