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.
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?