You can have my calculator...when you pry it out of my cold, dead hands.

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 06:34:33AM +0000, jim bell wrote:
> 
> http://www.autoblog.com/2017/04/26/oregon-fines-man-500-for-using-math-to-fight-red-light-cameras/
> 
> ×   
> Oregon fines man $500 for using math to challenge red-light cameras
> 
> It's a free-speech issue. And math is math, Oregon!
> 
> 
> Few things in this world are as universally despised as traffic
> cameras. After his wife received a ticket for tripping a red-light
> camera, Oregon resident Mats Järlström openly criticized the Orwellian
> devices and the mathematical formulas these cameras use. It seems Big
> Brother doesn't take too kindly to dissenters, as according to the
> Institute for Justice Järlström was fined $500 for violating a law
> that prohibits mathematical criticism without a license.

Sweet!

This has to be one of THE most awesome court cases/fines you could ever
get - the greated feather in the cap you could obtain just for standing
in court and affirming:

   "Did I do math to dispute this traffic camera your honour?
    HELL YES! You can bet the bench you bang your hammer on sir,
    yes, yes I did indeed do math to challenge that traffic camera,
    and by heaven I'd do it again, and again, and again!

    Now, hand me down your ruling, win lose or draw, and I'll decide
    my next mathematical step to take!"


Damn I wish I lived in Oregon right now - I'd be jumping in my car, or
any dang car I could get the keys to right about now, and duplicating
this guy's "problem".

Oh what a wonderful problem to have! My hat tim to the Oregon
legislature, you have literally invented one of the finest fines I can
imagine!

This is one of those cases Järlström could take all the way to the
Supreme Court, and I sure hope it gets that far!


If you, and/or the Supreme Court, are gonna shoot down a stupid law,
this has to be one of the greatest shoot downs possible!


To those involved: enjoy the ride!!!

Yee haw!
Z


> Free speech is a term that's often misconstrued. It's not some blanket to hide behind while spouting ridicule and hate to anyone and everyone. In the US, what free speech does protect is the right of a person to openly criticize the government, as Järlström was doing when he argued that the equation which governs the traffic light timers was out of date. After being fined, Järlström filed a lawsuit against the ban on mathematical debate.
> 
> The Institute for Justice says the actual fine was for Järlström calling himself a "professional engineer." The thing is, Järlström does have a degree in electrical engineering, though he doesn't carry a state license. In Oregon's eyes, that doesn't make him a real engineer. Järlström's initial issue was that the green-yellow-red progression was too short for lights with a left or right turn. Using his engineering expertise, he began to criticize the math equation that governs this timing, hence the fine.
> 
> Järlström and the Institute for Justice claim these licensing boards violate free speech by fining those who criticize both the boards and the government agencies behind things like traffic cameras. A lawyer for the Institute for Justice makes the point that you don't need to be a licensed lawyer to write an article disagreeing with a Supreme Court decision. Free speech, whether used to challenge Supreme Court decisions or traffic cameras, is a fundamental freedom granted by US Constitution.
> 
> And it's also no stretch to say that using mathematics is a fundamental human right - part of what actually makes us human. No law can take away our math.
> [end of quote]
>            Jim Bell