Read about the brave Typo Community Activists and/or the Typo Black Ops SWAT Team (depending on your persuasion).

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE67M40L20100823

This was posted here quite a while ago, but I cannot find the original thread.

Well, if this takes off, I guess we'll be seeing the Federal Service for the Prevention of Politically Incorrect Typographical Corrections to Government Signs formed and given an astronomical budget with which to work.

Through high school I worked for an Italian Restaurateur who made intentional spelling or grammar errors on the lit marquee out by the road each day. It started with one or two mistakes that patrons brought to his attention. He started doing it on purpose to get back at the "high society perfectionists." After a while, it became a game to spot the error each day. People would drive out of their way to spot the "mistake of the day" and stop in for breakfast, lunch or dinner. He was always picking our brains for some obscure error he could put up to throw people off. I went back 20 years later and the tradition was continued by his son.

Marketing!

Sorry if it's old news. Here's the part I really love:

They also ran into trouble at the Grand Canyon where they were arrested for fixing bad grammar in an official sign. A federal judge fined them $3,000 and banned them from speaking publicly about fixing typos for a year (emphasis mine), a period that expired in August 2009.

A federal judge . . . banned them from speaking publicly about fixing typos for a year . . . .[/quote]
You're right: that makes no sense at all.

(Frankly, the fine's kinda stupid as well.)

The federal judges ruling of not talking about typos for a year is just one example of the stupidity level of the entire human race. We really have become very stupid.

The most stupid of the population are going to be very offended that I said the above. That will prove my point perfectly when they do moan and scream about it. What I say to that is Shut up moron.

I'm not offended by anything you said, but just to be clear the judge's ruling did not prevent them from talking about typos. They were perfectly free to talk about typos among themselves and in private conversations for the year. Just not in public.

I have not read the book in full, but I read some of the book on line (thanks, GoogleBooks). In the court case in question, the judge was presented with evidence that the sign the two "corrected" was a historic sign from 1932 painted by famous American architect Mary Colter.

The ruling about not speaking publicly about this actually does make some sense, if the judge's intent was to prevent a surge in copy cat vandalism of historic signage in other national parks. Or that the two should not profit by speaking in public about an act of vandalism of national property.

I kind of see your point Balducci, But there is also the freedom of speech thing. As long as they weren't saying anything like I'm going to do this to whoever or talking about blowing up things, it would not and could not hurt anyone. The judge in my opinion is a major donkey's rear end.

Couldn't disagree with you more balducci. And I agree with RS1963. Lord-a-mercy.

Public speech should not be abridged unless there is an immediate danger, hence no crying fire in a crowded theatre. Seeking to discourage copycat crimes is not even close.

As for the point about not profiting from a book about one's crimes, I think most of the major politicians have got that covered already.

What are you agreeing or disagreeing with? I did not state any opinion for you to agree or disagree with me about. I just said what the court case was about, and why the judge might have decided as she did.

Your comment about copycat crimes, if you search the web you can find examples in which judges restricted freedom of speech for just that reason. I quickly found a reference in the Stanford Law Review that says some State legislatures have passed laws preventing this so-called "crime-facilitating" speech, EVEN IF the speaker has no intention of facilitating crime. So while you might disagree with the judge, it appears she might well have some precedent for her decision, if discouraging copycat crimes is what she was trying to do.

Because other judges have ruled a given way, doesn't make it correct, or less ridiculous.