Be cause it’s misleading. The WND knows that no one’s going to actually get 47 years, probably not 47 days, but makes it a headline. As Clinton said in his “apology” before the nation one evening, “Although my statements were technically accurate, I can see now how they may have been misleading.” When someone intentionally paints a false picture in other’s heads, technically accurate or not, it’s a lie. That’s why the testimonial oath is the truth, the whole truth and noting but the truth, rather that just “do you promise to tell the truth. Anything less is a lie.
Therefore, WND is lying here. “Invented” was being kind.
Also, I answered your second question in my fist post to this thread.
Many free speech cases involve genuine risk of only nominal punishment. Some involve no risk of real punishment at all. In almost every such case it is the unlikely maximum risk of punishment (what "could" happen) that is stressed by the opponents of the law or state action. Why? Because no one really knows beforehand what a particular jury or judge will decide by way of punishment on any particular or in any particular case. It is small comfort to reassure a defendant who has just received five years in prison for chanting a bible verse whie standing on a sidewalk, "Wow, dude. I never expected you to get more than a suspended six month sentence and community service. But at least I was right about you not receiving 47 years hard time."
The maximum punishment is stressed because it is real, not because it is likely. The real but unlikely has a chilling effect on free expression that is every bit as effective as the real but likely.
These people are being targeted for the political and faith-based content of their message, for publicly expressing disagreement with a powerful special interest group. That is abhorrent.