Let's back up, though. Here is what Walker said about the raids that Chisholm authorized:
I said even if you're a liberal Democrat, you should look at (the raids) and be frightened to think that if the government can do that against people of one political persuasion, they can do it against anybody, and more often than not we need protection against the government itself," Walker told the radio station.Chisholm didn't like that very much. His response?
"As (the National Review) pointed out, there were real questions about the constitutionality of much of what they did, but it was really about people trying to intimidate people..." Walker said.
"They were looking for just about anything. As I pointed out at the time, it was largely a political witch hunt."
As to defamatory remarks, I strongly suspect the Iowa criminal code, like Wisconsin's, has provisions for intentionally making false statements intended to harm the reputation of others," Chisholm said in a statement Saturday responding to Walker's comments.Free speech is a crime, then. You can't have an opinion of John Chisholm, at least not one that you can express publicly. Guess I'd better shut up.
2 comments:
"False statements meant to harm the reputation of others." I'd say something, Mr. Chisholm, but I'm too afraid. Perhaps you could check with your mirror, though.
Seems to me that ever since Peter Zenger was represented by Alexander Hamilton, true statements have not been prosecutable under the law. Maybe that little case back from the 1730s missed Chisholm's attention back in law school.
Post a Comment