761
FCC Chair Threatens Jimmy Kimmel Over Charlie Kirk Monologue Comments
(www.hollywoodreporter.com)
this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2025
761 points (99.4% liked)
News
32358 readers
3000 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So to clarify.. Jimmy Kimmel did not even mention Charlie Kirk in this monologue more than as a reference to the killer.
he literally said
To classify this as "removed over comments about Charlie Kirk" is insane! He was talking about his killer and the reason he was removed was clarified by the FCC chair.
Yet all the headlines read "for comments about Charlie Kirk"!
Should all be saying "Removed for commenting on MAGAs actions following this shooting"
/edit typos
Kirk is about to become a MAGA-Martyr, so any comment about his death is a sacrilege to them.
It s for the obvious lie about the intent and political association regarding the shooter. I think him being remove isn't the great, but he should be oblige to comme back on that statement which was a lie and tell the truth
Bullshit. This is such a disingenuous argument.
MAGA immediately lied about the shooter being left, making their entire base hostile. Especially towards all non-MAGA Americans that don't believe the 100% bullshit coming from Trumps mouth at a literal record setting pace.
Do you feel the same need to have clarifying statements come from every lying sack of MAGA hatred that said the shooter was left immediately with no evidence?
You know, literally all of them?
Because unlike Kimmel, they immediately used the death of one of their own to further antagonize their perceived political enemies despite a complete lack of evidence.
But sure, let's hold Kimmel to the "Truth" and not the unquestionable evil of using the dead for personal gain - that needs no apologies. Might as well ignore this behaviour despite it being responsible for 70% of public shootings the last 10 years too. Seeing that's now a fact this admin just deleted from the DOJ because they don't like it. Is you desire for the truth here too, as it is literally being covered up?
In what way do you feel Kimmel telling the truth is far better for our society as a whole?
Because there is no need to get angry over Kimmel for needing to "tell the truth." It's not like his lie killed more Americans than all the wars we ever fought in combined like COVID has.
So no offense, but it's obviously the truth is very far from what you are looking for here. What it sounds like you want from Kimmel is fealty.
the first arest done related to the shooting was literaly a leftist ( the old pedophile)
A public figure on tv network is held by standard and that s litteraly why he was removed
if u question why telling the truth is better for society i feel all your argument regarding the other side of yours can be dismissed.
I see any relation to that topic and if your argument is i can do that cause x does that then it can also be dismissed. also i really think you exagerate a virus that have a 0.1% of killing under 50 ppl. But that might be related to your already mortal obesity rate.
In my book he could even make fun of kirk. I dont like it but it s his right. Lying on national tv isnt
Yeah. The FBI is now run by an unqualified idiot, and he arrested the wrong person. Kash Patel is in a much higher office than Kimmel and should apologize for arresting who was obviously the wrong suspect according to you.
Every person who reported on that mistake as if it was true should also apologize, but I guess massively fucking up an FBI investigation is a good excuse to lie according to you? Do I understand that right?
Explain to me why you think Kimmels position as an public entertainer should be held to a higher standard than those in public office like the President. Seriously. Explain it.
Because it shouldnt. Political polices, not entertainment, are most effective when they're based on truth. We don't need truth in entertainment, we need truth in politics.
Trump and his entire cabinet should apologize for mistakenly believing the left was responsible, after the FBI apologizes for arresting who was clearly the wrong person.
This truth would have a far greater impact on society than Kimmel admitting he also made a mistake. Do you agree?
I'm not. I'm asking you to specifically tell me how Kimmel telling the truth is better for society COMPARED to Trump and his entire Cabinet doing the same.
It's a basic compare and contrast question, that I'll simplify into:
Which of the below would have a greater societal benefit in telling the truth:
Trump apologizing for lying about the left based on Patel massively fucking up and arresting the obvious wrong person.
Kimmel apologizing for lying about the right based on actual facts that were read in a way Trump didn't like.
Use your words to describe the benefits of each societal outcome rather than just saying one is better than the other (if you can.)
Because it is painfully obvious which would be better to society, and literally no one should have an issue seeing that if they're not logically compromised.
Seriously, honest question: how do you feel about the President lying on national TV? Or the head of the FBI?
Is it seriously only a bad thing to you when Kimmel does it? Because it really seems like your entire point of the Truth needing to being said on national TV is constructed entirely outside of Trump being our president and lying all the time.
Honestly, I find it sad that you think Kimmel needs to tell the truth, when our President has publically lied 162 times on TV this year alone. Here they all are:
https://www.npr.org/2024/08/11/nx-s1-5070566/trump-news-conference
Every single lie has a source. Every lie has a detailed description of how it was a lie.
This is in addition to the 30573 other lies he told to the public on TV during his first administration. Here's that list:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/01/24/trumps-false-or-misleading-claims-total-30573-over-four-years/
If you honestly care about the truth and how that benefits society, then why are you giving Trump a free pass to lie? Trump holds a higher office, is on TV, and based on my above links, lies much more frequently than Kimmel.
So, explain to me why you feel Trump doesn't need to ever publicly tell the truth, or admit when he's lying, but you think Kimmel does.
Seriously. Just answer this one question in a reasonable way, and maybe you have a point to make. I'll take any avoidance in talking about Trump as an admission that you're compromised by their propaganda.
it s not the fbi that did the arest but the security on the campus. And if u have a shooting and somebody gldly claim i did it yes i want him arrested and at least charge with obstruction to justice.
Give an exemple of anybody in charge of the investigation that said he was the shooter ?
Cause national tv is subject to law that doesnt abide political figure.
i agree but the dude was definetly a leftist and definetly not a maga
Tyler robinson is the killer he confesse it and his own familly told he was a leftist
I think it s wrong but regarding that case i didnt seen instance of it comming from them
i think it s wrong and i dont support it.
Cause like i said a network isnt held accountable the same way a politician is. I agree lying politician is bad and i dont suport it
Fox News: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/kash-patel-under-scrutiny-misreporting-charlie-kirk-suspects-capture
Here you go. Literally the head of the FBI saying the 71 yo they caught who wasn't the shooter is "the subject for the horrific shooting today that took the life of Charlie Kirk is now in custody."
Here's what happened when that guy got arrested:
Patel before bothering to learn any of this:
Everyone in the MAGA sphere then went on to lie about the left as violent because of this.
Going so far as to delete the DOJ study proving the right is responsible for 70% of mass shootings.
https://people.com/department-of-justice-quietly-deletes-study-after-charlie-kirk-death-that-says-right-wing-extremists-engage-in-far-more-political-violence-11811580
And you want to believe Kimmel apologizing is somehow magically better for society? Is his apology going to bring back these publically funded studies paid for by our tax dollars?
Explain this reasoning of yours. Please. Because it's truly insane to me.
And I do not say this lighty - but I have to because you honestly believe this:
Show me this law. It does not exist. Fox News can lie to you. It's technically entertainment and not news. Their lawyers argued this in court and won.
https://niemanreports.org/fox-dominion-lawsuit/
On air they said the opposite because they're allowed to lie. Because its legal for them to lie to you on television.
But it is NOT legal for anyone holding public office to lie.
Here is that law: https://www.mololamken.com/knowledge-Is-It-a-Crime-To-Lie-to-the-Government-Even-If-You-Are-Not-Under-Oath
Patel didn't know the person first arrested for the shooting was obviously not the culprit. But he lied and said he was. Saying this with certainty when the facts are unknown is a lie. Seeing as Patel is part of the Judicial branch, this is also illegal.
It is incredibly disheartening to hear you believe that Kimmel is guilty of some crime here instead of the FBI being lead by an incompetent lying idiot who is feeding national division by eagerly lying about a suspect in custody to fit a narrative before any information about them is confirmed. The damage caused by this is unquestionably larger than anything Kimmel has done, and you can't prove otherwise because you're unwilling to admit team Trump even lies at all, despite them being the only ones in all of this legally obligated to tell the truth.
in the article u link he s criticized for that. And the left being violent isnt a first and like i said before the shooter is antifa affiliated and while we didnt have the shooter we had the bullet casing before with antifa slogan.
heard about that story but from i understand it was data that was missrepresented same as the adl one who post all anti goovernement action as far right. but that s not the subject here.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/73.1217
about the next point u have your answer in this part "within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the United States. You must “know” that what you are saying is a lie to make you guilty of this crime."
??? did u misstype ? anyway im not sure he was lying since he retract his statement in 2 hour. like see he retract false statement. The same i said kiemel should be abble to do
im all for a wolrd where incompetence is a crime.
they retracted false informations. in the end the killer is still a leftist. Also not abide by the same law. but i agree bad information comming from the head of the fbi is bad and i condomne thoses
I'm sorry, but you're hopeless.
The shooter being a "leftist" is obviously all you care about. Not the truth. Not what's legal. It doesn't matter at all to you that the FBI literally lied about the shooter being a leftist before they even caught the real guy.
Do you not understand how that means they are willing to lie to you about anyone being a leftist before there's evidence?
Do you not understand that anything Trumps team calls left you'll just hate without thinking about it? Do you not understand how you've literally already proven this is the case with Kirks shooter? It's also painfully obvious why you can't bother to admit how much Trump lies.
Because then you might understand how many innocent people have already been punished simply because Trump lied about them being leftist / illegal / bad to you just to get votes.
Literally thousands of examples of this exist by the way.
It would be great if you could actually care about this, instead of the snowflake reaction you're having about Kimmel.
But it does explain why this country has gone to shit. Because you let TV tell you who the bad guys are, and didnt bother to make sure TV wasn't lying to you about it. So now Americans are the bad guys, and you're okay with that because they're "leftists".
Trump can now say whatever he wants and you will believe it as true without ever checking. Hell, you'll even defend his lies now. Just as you have with the removal of the DOJ report on violent right wing extremism.
Here's two more Independant studies all proving the data in the deleted report was true: (Which in turn proves you defended the lie about the data being poor before checking to see if was true.)
https://www.start.umd.edu/publication/comparison-political-violence-left-wing-right-wing-and-islamist-extremists-united
https://www.adl.org/resources/report/murder-and-extremism-united-states-2024
The above is true, do you agree? Yes or no answer is all you need. Prove you care about the truth more than Trump by admitting what he won't.
Dude accuse the shooter of being maga
Shooter is leftist
Said that your oposant interest depend on the shooter affiliation to disprove a lie on that subject. You are really smart
Tell me is the shooter was maga yes or no ?
No. Never accused him of being MAGA either. Literally read this conversation again to see.
You just want this chat to be about the political affiliation of the Kirk shooter because its the only narrative you've been fed that you know how to defend.
Your turn:
Does Trump lie to your face? Yes or no.
By all means, keep on proving to be a coward that can't admit Trump lies to you. Going on what, like three requests of mine by now? You must really like being lied to as long as by it's someone you think is better than you. Turns out, he lied to you about that too.
We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it,
Ok that s gonna be it. I can t discussed with unintelligent person
My dude. That is not me you are quoting at all. Try again. But with my name talking about the shooter being MAGA. Good luck.
Trump lies to your face, yes or no? 4th time I've asked.
Call me unintelligent all you want, at least I have balls big enough to answer you. Go ahead and prove me right for a 4th time by being a baby about not answering.
I mean this: literal children can answer my question, why can't you?
I'm not talking about you I'm talking about the dude who got suspended by saying he was maga and who is the subject of the conversation. Are you real Here ? Tell me. Does kimel lied yes or no ? For any no you invent applied it to trump and u have my answer same for every yes eve' if it s just you derailing the conversation to not accept the fact that kimel lied and got rightfully punished for it
Did Kimmel lie? No. Absolutely not.
The comment was about MAGA influencers like Trump himself saying the following:
https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-lede/maga-reacts-to-the-assassination-of-charlie-kirk
Simply put:
Trump is MAGA gang. This comment of his characterizes the shooter as anything other than MAGA. And he's doing it to score political points. (Instead of mending a clearly devided nation).
Here's what Kimmel said:
Show me the lie.
I'm certain I'll be asking you that till I'm blue in the face too.
I already pointed out the law. So nothing Kimmel did was illegal, therefore he deserved no punishment.
We're literally back to talking about someing I've already proven was false. Kimmel doing something illegal is false, and comes from the lies you can't admit Trump makes to your face.
Never said it was illegal cause it depend on a judgement that will never happen cause the network doesn't even want to take that chance. But what I said and what is true is it could be under the hoax legislation.
Kimmel saying he was maga was a lie. Your word soup about that won't change the fact he lied.
Show me where he says this. He doesn't. You are lying.
Your lack of reading comprehension to understand this is not an excuse. I literally walked you though his comment.
There is no hoax legislation. Otherwise link it. You are lying.
We have the first Amendment. You are ignoring.
Kimmel is being punished for upsetting Trump, not for doing anything illegal. He never said the shooter was MAGA. Yet you're okay with Trump violating the first Amendment of the Constitution because of that lie.
One of several lies you can't admit Trump makes, or that my links show.
Literally dude, you can't even think for yourself and it's embarrassing at this point.
Proof: Does Trump lie to your face?
Yes or No.
Fifth time I've asked.
You can't answer because that would be you thinking for yourself instead of Trump doing it for you.
By all means prove me right for a fifth time by being too scared to answer a yes or no question.
Here you go
https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/guides/hoaxes
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2024-title47-vol4/pdf/CFR-2024-title47-vol4-sec73-1217.pdf
You should mb get in contact with the gouvernement that vote this law
He still lied and your word soup doesnt change that fact. I dont even know why you search a parallel wich isnt one and isnt related to that case.
It's not a hoax if what he told is true. Kimmel did not lie.
He never said the shooter was MAGA.
He said MAGA people like you want the shooter to be anything other than MAGA. Which you do.
Here's the "Hoax" of his statement:
Let's simplify it with three changes to:
Which is true. Remember? You want them to be a leftist as you've often said?
That is not a Hoax. Just you spreading multiple lies.
And just like the head of our FBI, Patel, you're calling the shooter something they aren't too early:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/no-evidence-charlie-kirk-shooting-left-wing-groups-rcna232513
Here's literal proof there's no evidence the shooter is a leftist according to three sources as linked above.
You are literally repeating lies before checking to see if they're true, and giving our government a pass to do the same. It's embarrassing. And damaging.
Because IF what Kimmel said IS NOT a Hoax, THEN IT IS a violation of our first Amendment rights.
Something you should be protecting. But can't, because you can't admit:
Trump lies to your face: yes or no?
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 program~~ an 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.
Somebody killing a maga adjacent or affiliate personality and your reaction is saying Isnt it weird how thoses ppl think the shooter isnt maga is dishonest in all context. I'm glad that u dont feel that s the case but that s doesn't matter in this one.
Also if it was really his freedom of speech under attack it wouldn't have been only the fcc that would be in the case. You rip what you sow and making the attempt to paint a bad comedian as a martyr of freedom of speech while he still can express himself simply not on broadcast that have stricter rule is also dishonest.
Honestly, I thought it was more important that the shooter was so mentally distorted as to publicly slaughter somebody and that he had the tools and circumstances to do that successfully. If you think not being MAGA was a more significant factor than that, you can hold that opinion, but that doesn't make it dishonest for someone to believe differently or express that. Again, what Kimmel said was not about what people believe, but what they are prioritizing in what they say and do.
The First Amendment doesn't say that the government is allowed to restrict free speech so long as they leave you some avenue to express yourself, it says that they are not allowed to restrict free speech at all (outside of some narrow categories that aren't considered free speech to begin with). Someone doesn't have to be a saint or martyr for it to be a bad thing for the government to treat them improperly.
You good at just derailing the conversation on things that doesn't matter regarding that issue.
The first amendement regard personal right not the right about tv national network and still it s a private corporation that fire him not the gouvernement
Those points are exactly on issue. You need to either get yourself up to speed on the conversation we've been having or accept that it is beyond you, but for all the patience I've put into this conversation I will not stand for you to just declare me derailing it to offhandedly dismiss a core point you don't like. If you honestly think that I'm trying to pull the discussion off-course, then point out where and how, don't just give a cowardly hand-wave and pretend to have the high ground.
As a famous politician quipped, "corporations are people, my friend". Whether you or I like it or not, that is the current reality of constitutional rights. But it's not just corporate actions that are being targeted, it's specifically what Kimmel (who is a person) said. Don't pretend that the enforcement [retribution] mechanism defines what activity is being restricted. If the government threatened to fine the company owned by anyone caught wearing a blue shirt, they are restricting people from wearing blue shirts, not owning companies. If the FCC Chair threatens to do things "the hard way" for a company that employs Kimmel because of what he said, they are restricting his speech.
Furthermore, the fact that government agents didn't literally haul him out of the building does not absolve them of wrongdoing. Threatening someone and then pretending to not have actually done anything and that their reaction is entirely on them is a classic abuser strategy. Are you going to wholeheartedly stand behind that line of argument and claim to be in good faith? (And don't even try to claim that people lambasting ABC/Disney for being weak enough to give in to that threat are blaming them for being threatened in the first place.)
Damn bro his right to lye in 4k on the air on the most controversial recent issue is being suppressed by the government ? Omg Better call Alex Jones and anti vaxer to tell them they were unjustly juged and should defend their first amendement right
I just gave you a thorough explanation of how he did not say the killer was MAGA, the one with the example about the color of the sky. You didn't even attempt any sort of rebuttal, so I thought we had moved past that point. Did you already forget about that, or is returning to claiming he lied just a bad-faith argumentative tactic instead of actually engaging with the points I'm making?
Even if Kimmel had made a claim about the killer's politics in an offhand comment with mixed reports coming in, it would demonstrate a deep lack of awareness to say that that's comparable to an extended campaign to harass and falsely accuse the grieving parents of murdered children of being actors paid to decieve the public, causing them years of documented torment and damages, or to repeating the falsified claims of a fraudulent and abusive study that was actually made up to push a different vaccine. (Let alone the whataboutism)
You are the one being bad faith saying his formulation in no way or form can be interpreted other way than yours.
"can be interpreted" would mean that he is not inherently lying, but that you are choosing an interpretation (twisting his words) to try to say that he is. Otherwise I could say you are lying about calling me bad faith because you don't know anything about my religious practices. See how absurd that is?
Is coming into a conversation and clearly laying out my points along with giving reasoning and explanations "bad faith" now? What conventions or norms am I breaking, other than taking a fact- and logic-based approach to reality? Are those not allowed any more?
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
did fox news and others not say immediately that the assassin was "left wing" or "democrat"? that is what that sentence means. it is just a fact
Was it a lie yes or no ?
no, it was not a lie.
kimmel didn't even say, just implied that right wingers said it was a democrat, he just said it "wasn't one of them", which is a very cautious way of saying that, but even that was too much for some
We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it,
Nice try taking part of sentence out of context. His formulation let no place to doubt.
again, did they not do that?
and to be clear he's not saying the shooter was maga, he's talking about the maga news, what they were saying and doing
Ok bro then go see Kimmel to say to him that your going to represent him in front of the court of law for unjustified termination regarding his freedom of speech
that's very kind of you to say, but fortunately i don't live in the usa, and i do not wish to visit at the moment
Fair enough. Still not an attack on freedom of speech