- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Sinclair Broadcasting has given a list of demands for Kimmel to return to their stations
Posted on 9/19/25 at 1:42 pm to Corinthians420
Posted on 9/19/25 at 1:42 pm to Corinthians420
You're a literal psychopath
0
Posted on 9/19/25 at 1:42 pm to Jack Ruby
quote:
Sinclair can cut the show if it wants, but sending a demand letter like this is exactly what so many ppl on the right railed against the left doing.
It's not a good look. It's petty. Just cut the show and be done with it. ABC was probably going to cancel the show once Kimmel contract was up anyway. Late night is a massive loss leader now.
An ABC affiliate telling ABC what will need to happen for them to continue broadcasting an ABC show isn't petty.
Posted on 9/19/25 at 1:46 pm to Madking
Madking/imjustafatkid/LNCHBOX used all 3 accounts to post in this thread. Impressive.
Posted on 9/19/25 at 1:47 pm to Corinthians420
“Everybody’s an alter” the last refuge of a liar.
This post was edited on 9/19/25 at 1:48 pm
Posted on 9/19/25 at 1:48 pm to Madking
boy ego is the downfall of the head of office.
Posted on 9/19/25 at 1:50 pm to Madking
quote:
“Everybody’s an alter” the last refuge of a liar.
If you 3 arent alters then you are at least sharing the same brain cell.
Posted on 9/19/25 at 1:52 pm to Corinthians420
That you’re full of shite? You can make that claim about most human beings.
Posted on 9/19/25 at 1:54 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
You mean the standard that was overturned in 1969 in Brandenburg v. Ohio?
It is still very much cited today in a practical sense because it is a good point, even if not one backed up by the law.
That is because of a few things:
1) the scenario involves there NOT being a fire, therefore the person is saying something that isn't a fact.
2) By saying it you incite a reaction from the people in the theater based on false pretenses
3) It could get people hurt
So lets compare those to the Kimmel comment:
1: The shooter was not MAGA
2. He incites a reaction to the comments: lefties believe its a crazy MAGA loon, right wingers believe he is lying
3. It could promote retaliation from the MAGA wing who believe he is lying (because he was) and potential left wing bad actors are now being shown that responsibility will be abjucated from their ideology to their opposition's ideology, and when you have people killing people to advance their own agendas this actually makes the action even more effective.... you can do it without harming your own cause. So the potential for harm is there.
Posted on 9/19/25 at 2:05 pm to VolSquatch
quote:
2) By saying it you incite a reaction from the people in the theater based on false pretenses
3) It could get people hurt
I feel like key piece to these 2 parts is the immediate lawlessness leading to danger of someone getting hurt.
I dont think it could be reasonably argued that Kimmel's statement could lead to immediate lawlessness.
This post was edited on 9/19/25 at 2:05 pm
Posted on 9/19/25 at 2:05 pm to Corinthians420
quote:
Satire is protected unless it constitutes defamation, incitement to imminent violence, or another unprotected category of speech, such as obscenity or fraud.
He wasn't engaging in satire when he stated the shooter was a MAGA supporter, he was engaging in supporting violence committed by Leftists by flat-out lying about the shooter.
That's not "satire" either, it's just blatant propaganda.
Posted on 9/19/25 at 2:07 pm to Bard
quote:
He wasn't engaging in satire when
An opening monologue to a late night comedy show that always includes a laugh track is satire/humor.
quote:
he stated the shooter was a MAGA supporter
It could be suggested, it was never stated
quote:
clearly expressed or identified; specified
Posted on 9/19/25 at 2:28 pm to Bard
quote:
he was engaging in supporting violence
If what he said becomes the standard for engaging in and supporting violence and it should result in censorship from the government we are all in trouble.
Posted on 9/19/25 at 2:35 pm to Dizz
Purposely lying about a political assassination to mislead the public when there’s an obvious problem with people celebrating this that stems from lying to the public is a huge issue.
Posted on 9/19/25 at 2:37 pm to Dizz
quote:
If what he said becomes the standard for engaging in and supporting violence and it should result in censorship from the government we are all in trouble
Its like these dudes werent alive for the aftermath of 9/11 and the Patriot act being passed.
Posted on 9/19/25 at 2:39 pm to Corinthians420
quote:
it was never stated
Sure it was, but frankly it's a pretty irrelevant point.
quote:
An opening monologue to a late night comedy show that always includes a laugh track is satire/humor.
So, everything said in an opening monologue on a late night comedy show that includes a laugh track is satire? Everything?
This post was edited on 9/19/25 at 2:43 pm
Posted on 9/19/25 at 2:44 pm to Dizz
quote:
If what he said becomes the standard for engaging in and supporting violence and it should result in censorship from the government we are all in trouble.
Counter point, this is actually a step in the right direction if this becomes the new standard. We've recently been at a point where refusing to use someone's preferred pronouns has been considered violence and worthy of censorship.
This post was edited on 9/19/25 at 2:45 pm
Posted on 9/19/25 at 2:44 pm to Corinthians420
quote:
It could be suggested, it was never stated
bullshite. Here's the exact quote:
quote:
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.
At the very least, he's so heavily implying it that the difference is irrelevant.
Posted on 9/19/25 at 2:45 pm to Madking
quote:
there’s an obvious problem with people celebrating this
People celebrating what happened is a moral/societal issue that doesn't need government intervention or influence.
Posted on 9/19/25 at 2:45 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
To qualify for protection, satire typically must be understood by the average person as an opinion or an exaggerated commentary, rather than a believable statement of fact, especially when it involves public figures or public concerns.
However, satire loses protection and can be restricted if it contains a false statement of fact made with actual malice, which means the creator knew the statement was false or recklessly disregarded the truth.
He didn't present the shooter as being a right winger as a statement of fact.
However, satire loses protection and can be restricted if it contains a false statement of fact made with actual malice, which means the creator knew the statement was false or recklessly disregarded the truth.
He didn't present the shooter as being a right winger as a statement of fact.
Posted on 9/19/25 at 2:47 pm to Bard
quote:
At the very least, he's so heavily implying it that the difference is irrelevant.
Not in a legal context
In a legal context, a statement of facts is a concise, professional summary of the events, circumstances, and evidence relevant to a case, used to provide a clear foundation for legal arguments.
Examples of Factual vs. Opinion Statements
Fact: "The speed limit was 45 mph". (This is a verifiable detail).
Opinion: "He was driving recklessly". (This is a subjective judgment, not a statement of fact).
Page 8 of 15
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News