> The issue that the Board has is that he claimed to be an engineer in a public forum.
That's not the only issue the Board said it had, and not the most important one at that:
> [...] you continued to use the title "engineer" in your communication with Board staff and, of more concern, are the documents you provided that indicate you may have engaged in unlicensed engineering work in Oregon.
(emphasis mine). It's the emphasized clause, and the Board's Final Report, page 6, Section 14[1], that is concerning: he's being punished mainly ("of more concern"!) for doing thinking and speech that, IMO, should not be prohibited.
That's not the only issue the Board said it had, and not the most important one at that:
> [...] you continued to use the title "engineer" in your communication with Board staff and, of more concern, are the documents you provided that indicate you may have engaged in unlicensed engineering work in Oregon.
(emphasis mine). It's the emphasized clause, and the Board's Final Report, page 6, Section 14[1], that is concerning: he's being punished mainly ("of more concern"!) for doing thinking and speech that, IMO, should not be prohibited.
1. https://www.scribd.com/document/346354146/mats4#from_embed