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 ?
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 ?