So I read the legal decision, not just the article.
There's a reasonable argument, at least, for regulating some specific status like "chartered engineer", as several other commenters have claimed. But indeed Oregon doesn't seem to do that - the bits of the code cited can be read as covering just the word "engineer", and the judgment actually seems to do so (by finding that he was in violation of it by calling himself a "Swedish engineer" and an "excellent engineer"). Which is pretty ballsy and difficult to defend in a world where most places don't do that.
But that's not even the worst part. The worst part (to me) is the definition of engineering itself:
"( 1) "Practice of engineering" or "practice of professional engineering" means
doing any of the following:
(a) Performing any professional service or creative work requiring
engineering education, training and experience.
(b) Applying special knowledge of the mathematical, physical and
engineering sciences to such professional services or creative work as
consultation, investigation, testimony, evaluation, planning, design and
services during construction, manufacture or fabrication for the purpose of
ensuring compliance with specifications and design, in connection with any
public or private utilities, structures, buildings, machines, equipment,
processes, works or projects * * * *."
That seems to be stating - and the board certainly seems to be interpreting it as stating - that you don't actually have to be performing any practical *work* to be 'practicing engineering'. You just have to be involved in some sort of "creative work", i.e., thinking about stuff and writing it down.
There's an exemption mentioned later on which exempts you if you don't offer your work to the public, but that's still patently absurd. It seems like basically anyone who thinks about traffic light timings and writes their thoughts on a comment thread, or forum, or Facebook post or something, would be in violation of this ridiculous rule. And it's pretty hard to see how *that's* not a clear violation of the First Amendment.