4 ms·
This situation is horrific and should have never happened, but to be clear the prosecution was for violating sunshine laws. So the conviction was not for speech
by calgarymicro 4y ago
This situation is horrific and should have never happened, but to be clear the prosecution was for violating sunshine laws. So the conviction was not for speech, but rather for failing to conduct that speech in public.
Edit: it was actually for perjury during the sunshine investigation.
- ok_dad 4y agoThe prosecution isn't the issue, it's that they put a 75 year old man, who was not a threat to his community and who likely wouldn't flee prosecution due to his age and his connections locally, into jail/prison for 75 days. That's where the "political prisoner" part comes from. They can prosecute all they want for what may or may not have been a violation, but the overzealousness shown is obviously retribution against this guy.
- canuckintime 4y agoThat's not clear and correct. The conviction was about 'perjury' committed under a subpoena for the sunshine laws investigation concerning a fact (when the phone calls stopped) that turned out immaterial to the sunshine law charges. The prosecution of the supposed Sunshine Laws violation was not successfully completed. The conviction was for speech
- calgarymicro 4y agoI don't think perjury is usually included as part of free speech either, but I take your point. Edited.