If you read his quote above there is no lie in that line. The right have been trying to distance themselves from the shooter and have been using it to score political points as either of the party does with a situation they can use. (Although this administration is actively spreading disinformation)
How Tyler robinson a dude described NY his own mother left leaning dating a trans and saying he did it cause Kirk spread too much hatred was a maga ? How this isn’t a lie?
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.
If you read his quote above there is no lie in that line. The right have been trying to distance themselves from the shooter and have been using it to score political points as either of the party does with a situation they can use. (Although this administration is actively spreading disinformation)
How Tyler robinson a dude described NY his own mother left leaning dating a trans and saying he did it cause Kirk spread too much hatred was a maga ? How this isn’t a lie?
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.
could you please quote what was the lie?