ABC has suspend 'Jimmy Kimmel Live!' in the wake of Brendan Carr threatening ABC affiliates following the late-night host's comments about the suspected Kirk shooter's politics.
If you had actually read the quote as you were instructed to do, you would see that even if the killer were 120% a card-carrying DNC toe-sucker, that would not make the statement inaccurate. The murderer’s political affiliation was declared before they even had the right guy, a clear example of the actions described in the quote. As though someone’s political beliefs can even be a hard enough fact to bring legal action down on a news programan entertainment show who no reasonable viewer could believe is accurate news after a certain vulpine decision. If you just assume a falsehood from someone you don’t like because you won’t or can’t understand their actual statement, that’s hardly a regulatory infraction.
bro he lied that s it. not turning around or any things will change that. i dont see how the point they made mistake on the suspect is an argument that allow you to lie on something that you know is false. And the law that abide tv network and was cited by the authority doesnr regard the typpe of show but the severity and damage of the lie. “It is foreseeable that broadcast of the information will cause substantial public harm” and "Any programming accompanied by a disclaimer will be presumed not to pose foreseeable harm if the disclaimer clearly characterizes the program as a fiction and is presented in a way that is reasonable under the circumstances. " Legal action wasnt even bring on the “entertainement show” freedom of speech wich you implied should protect his lie doesnt equal freedom of consequence. And also tv network are abide to more rules.
If you just assume a falsehood from someone you don’t like
the dude literally lied on the bigest political assasination of the decade and u can turn it how u want it s not me and my assumption that make it a lie but what he blatantly said.
hat’s hardly a regulatory infraction.
§ 73.1217 Broadcast hoaxes. (10–1–24 Edition)
Who was in power to vote this law 🤔
You are making up that he said anything about the killer being a leftist or not. He said that MAGAs are trying to call the killer “anything other than one of them”. That is a substantively different statement. Unless Jimmy said something different to you than the rest of us, continuing to repeat your claim that he lied would actually be you lying.
I consider a public statement by the FCC chair that the companies need to “take action on Kimmel” or the FCC will act to be “legal action”. It is not merely “freedom of consequence” when it is a threat of consequences from a government body; in fact, that’s the sole critical difference from a freedom of speech issue and you missed it.
Anything other than one of them let not other possibility than the killer being one of them.
The fact you r arguing on semantic and wanna say an obvious lie isnt a lie cause u can lie about that matter simply prove my point to me. The fact the company didn’t even wanna try what would have been a case and judgement prove how in the eye of the law he was wrong. I have no idea of consequence from a gouvernement body disprove the argument when freedom of speech is law abiding
Truly, am I more Sisyphus or Tantalus upon this day, or has Tartarus seen fit to bestow upon me an entirely new task!
The difference between “he said XYZ” or “he feels this way about XYZ” versus “XYZ is true” is not semantics. It is the critical point that distinguishes invalid hearsay from legal testimony. And take note of how I directly establish my point and give supporting examples, not just parrot “no what you say proves me right”.
That is the exact opposite of proving that “in the eye of the law he was wrong” if there was no case and no judgement.
Freedom of speech is about consequences from the government, while the “freedom of [from] consequence” you brought up is about consequences from the free market, public opinion, etc. That you have no idea why that is relevant means you should do more research on what you are saying so that you are not stating lies.
It s critical formulation that let not place to doubt.
About your second point it s funny how the network owner didn’t even tried to go to court for a case that they could maybe win, like maybe it was also the consequence from the free market and opinions ?
About stating lie, yes or no did he said the shooter was maga ?
As I already said, you are stuck on the wrong part. He did not say that the shooter was MAGA. It might be the case that his phrasing would often be used by someone that also believed that shooter was MAGA in addition to MAGAs telling everyone that the shooter wasn’t MAGA, but that’s not what he said, nor is it even logicly implied by what he said. He could believe that, or even outright say, that the shooter wasn’t MAGA, and still say the exact same thing without it being inconsistent or a lie.
Using phrasing that someone would assume is part of a statement that is different than the one actually given is a classic comedic element, like when it sounds like someone is starting to give some bad news but then they switch tone in the middle and actually give some good news. Just because you started to think it was bad news doesn’t mean that they actually said any bad news before they changed tone. That doesn’t mean he was making a joke about it, just that an aspect of communication used in his career may come also come up in other places and be used to other effects.
Let me give another example: If we saw some guy running around telling everyone the sky is blue and my friend were to point out to me that “Isn’t it weird that that guy is telling everyone the sky is blue?”, then I might say something like “Yeah, that is weird.” because someone running around telling people the color of the sky is not normal. If you then come by and say “Are you two crazy? The sky is actually blue!” then you would be missing that the point is the guy’s actions, not the color of the sky.
Now, notice that in that example, it didn’t even actually matter if the sky was actually blue to point out the weird behavior. It could have happened exactly the same way if it was overcast and we couldn’t tell the color of the sky, or even if it was sunset and the sky was actually red at the time. To bring it back to the main point, everyone else is talking about the behavior of the folks trying so hard to label it with color, but you are just arguing about what color it is and claiming that my friend is lying about the color, but all he actually said was the people suddenly trying so hard to talk about the color are acting weird.
Regarding the other point, maybe it would also be a consequence and maybe it wouldn’t, but that doesn’t address whether there was a freedom of speech violation by the government. It would still be wrong for the government to violate freedom of speech no matter how much other consequences there are. If he said that kittens weren’t cute and suddenly nobody wanted to pay a cent to any company he ever worked with and so he took a vow of silence, it would still be wrong for the government to say “Any company that lets him broadcast that kittens aren’t cute will face FCC action.” It doesn’t even have to go to court to still affect someone. Additionally, it is abundantly clear that these large media companies are trying to appease the personal feelings of those currently in power to avoid being targeted by government action, when it should be only their legal opinions that matter.
If you had actually read the quote as you were instructed to do, you would see that even if the killer were 120% a card-carrying DNC toe-sucker, that would not make the statement inaccurate. The murderer’s political affiliation was declared before they even had the right guy, a clear example of the actions described in the quote. As though someone’s political beliefs can even be a hard enough fact to bring legal action down on
a news programan entertainment show who no reasonable viewer could believe is accurate news after a certain vulpine decision. If you just assume a falsehood from someone you don’t like because you won’t or can’t understand their actual statement, that’s hardly a regulatory infraction.bro he lied that s it. not turning around or any things will change that. i dont see how the point they made mistake on the suspect is an argument that allow you to lie on something that you know is false. And the law that abide tv network and was cited by the authority doesnr regard the typpe of show but the severity and damage of the lie. “It is foreseeable that broadcast of the information will cause substantial public harm” and "Any programming accompanied by a disclaimer will be presumed not to pose foreseeable harm if the disclaimer clearly characterizes the program as a fiction and is presented in a way that is reasonable under the circumstances. " Legal action wasnt even bring on the “entertainement show” freedom of speech wich you implied should protect his lie doesnt equal freedom of consequence. And also tv network are abide to more rules.
the dude literally lied on the bigest political assasination of the decade and u can turn it how u want it s not me and my assumption that make it a lie but what he blatantly said.
§ 73.1217 Broadcast hoaxes. (10–1–24 Edition) Who was in power to vote this law 🤔
You are making up that he said anything about the killer being a leftist or not. He said that MAGAs are trying to call the killer “anything other than one of them”. That is a substantively different statement. Unless Jimmy said something different to you than the rest of us, continuing to repeat your claim that he lied would actually be you lying.
I consider a public statement by the FCC chair that the companies need to “take action on Kimmel” or the FCC will act to be “legal action”. It is not merely “freedom of consequence” when it is a threat of consequences from a government body; in fact, that’s the sole critical difference from a freedom of speech issue and you missed it.
Anything other than one of them let not other possibility than the killer being one of them.
The fact you r arguing on semantic and wanna say an obvious lie isnt a lie cause u can lie about that matter simply prove my point to me. The fact the company didn’t even wanna try what would have been a case and judgement prove how in the eye of the law he was wrong. I have no idea of consequence from a gouvernement body disprove the argument when freedom of speech is law abiding
Truly, am I more Sisyphus or Tantalus upon this day, or has Tartarus seen fit to bestow upon me an entirely new task!
The difference between “he said XYZ” or “he feels this way about XYZ” versus “XYZ is true” is not semantics. It is the critical point that distinguishes invalid hearsay from legal testimony. And take note of how I directly establish my point and give supporting examples, not just parrot “no what you say proves me right”.
That is the exact opposite of proving that “in the eye of the law he was wrong” if there was no case and no judgement.
Freedom of speech is about consequences from the government, while the “freedom of [from] consequence” you brought up is about consequences from the free market, public opinion, etc. That you have no idea why that is relevant means you should do more research on what you are saying so that you are not stating lies.
Anything other than
It s critical formulation that let not place to doubt. About your second point it s funny how the network owner didn’t even tried to go to court for a case that they could maybe win, like maybe it was also the consequence from the free market and opinions ?
About stating lie, yes or no did he said the shooter was maga ?
As I already said, you are stuck on the wrong part. He did not say that the shooter was MAGA. It might be the case that his phrasing would often be used by someone that also believed that shooter was MAGA in addition to MAGAs telling everyone that the shooter wasn’t MAGA, but that’s not what he said, nor is it even logicly implied by what he said. He could believe that, or even outright say, that the shooter wasn’t MAGA, and still say the exact same thing without it being inconsistent or a lie.
Using phrasing that someone would assume is part of a statement that is different than the one actually given is a classic comedic element, like when it sounds like someone is starting to give some bad news but then they switch tone in the middle and actually give some good news. Just because you started to think it was bad news doesn’t mean that they actually said any bad news before they changed tone. That doesn’t mean he was making a joke about it, just that an aspect of communication used in his career may come also come up in other places and be used to other effects.
Let me give another example: If we saw some guy running around telling everyone the sky is blue and my friend were to point out to me that “Isn’t it weird that that guy is telling everyone the sky is blue?”, then I might say something like “Yeah, that is weird.” because someone running around telling people the color of the sky is not normal. If you then come by and say “Are you two crazy? The sky is actually blue!” then you would be missing that the point is the guy’s actions, not the color of the sky.
Now, notice that in that example, it didn’t even actually matter if the sky was actually blue to point out the weird behavior. It could have happened exactly the same way if it was overcast and we couldn’t tell the color of the sky, or even if it was sunset and the sky was actually red at the time. To bring it back to the main point, everyone else is talking about the behavior of the folks trying so hard to label it with color, but you are just arguing about what color it is and claiming that my friend is lying about the color, but all he actually said was the people suddenly trying so hard to talk about the color are acting weird.
Regarding the other point, maybe it would also be a consequence and maybe it wouldn’t, but that doesn’t address whether there was a freedom of speech violation by the government. It would still be wrong for the government to violate freedom of speech no matter how much other consequences there are. If he said that kittens weren’t cute and suddenly nobody wanted to pay a cent to any company he ever worked with and so he took a vow of silence, it would still be wrong for the government to say “Any company that lets him broadcast that kittens aren’t cute will face FCC action.” It doesn’t even have to go to court to still affect someone. Additionally, it is abundantly clear that these large media companies are trying to appease the personal feelings of those currently in power to avoid being targeted by government action, when it should be only their legal opinions that matter.
could you please quote what was the lie?
Sure
gonna point the irony of the next sentence too
Cause yeah why liying about it if not for political point