June 17, 20214 yr Author 2 minutes ago, vikas83 said: They don't. They make clear legally that they are not news, and they don't hold themselves out to be so. I mean...does SNL or Maher have responsibility for the impact they have on viewers? Personal responsibility is the key. People are free to go on TV and say ridiculous crap. Pretty sure that's like 95% of all television. Unless they directly incite or instruct violence, it's protected. It isn't their fault morons like Kz! lap up their vomit and pronounce it tasty.
June 17, 20214 yr 1 minute ago, vikas83 said: They don't. They make clear legally that they are not news, and they don't hold themselves out to be so. I mean...does SNL or Maher have responsibility for the impact they have on viewers? Personal responsibility is the key. People are free to go on TV and say ridiculous crap. Pretty sure that's like 95% of all television. Unless they directly incite or instruct violence, it's protected. Yes. I'm not talking about a legal responsibility, but a personal one, absolutely. And I think Maher at least would fully recognize his impact and the responsibility he carries. It's why goes after the left as much as he does, because he's aware that that's who's watching him and that's where he can make the most lasting impact.
June 17, 20214 yr You Literally Can't Believe The Facts Tucker Carlson Tells You. So Say Fox's Lawyers https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-believe-the-facts-tucker-carlson-tells-you-so-say-fox-s-lawye
June 17, 20214 yr 3 minutes ago, VanHammersly said: Yes. I'm not talking about a legal responsibility, but a personal one, absolutely. And I think Maher at least would fully recognize his impact and the responsibility he carries. It's why goes after the left as much as he does, because he's aware that that's who's watching him and that's where he can make the most lasting impact. I meant legally. If you're waiting for a moral awakening among Tucker, Hannity, et. al...good luck with that. Morality is subjective. The law is not.
June 17, 20214 yr Just now, vikas83 said: I meant legally. Morality is subjective. The law is not. I'm not sure Gannan's comment was specific to legality though.
June 17, 20214 yr 14 minutes ago, vikas83 said: He's an entertainer who gets great ratings by playing a character. The blame belongs with his viewers. He is giving them what they want. Yeah it's not his fault all his viewers are complete and utter idiots. Some of those fools even go around sharing clips of his show on a message board like it's investigative journalism, only to be repeated dunked on like a 3 foot Fisher Price toy rim. It's sad, and quite frankly I hate to see it.
June 17, 20214 yr 13 minutes ago, DaEagles4Life said: You Literally Can't Believe The Facts Tucker Carlson Tells You. So Say Fox's Lawyers https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-believe-the-facts-tucker-carlson-tells-you-so-say-fox-s-lawye This has been debunked on here multiple times, but thanks for sharing again. lmfao
June 17, 20214 yr To clarify, is anyone actually arguing that the FBI hasn't infiltrated all of those "militia" groups? Are people arguing that it wouldn't be significant if we did, indeed, find out that 10-20 FBI informants or agents were involved in the planning and actual act of storming the capitol?
June 17, 20214 yr 2 minutes ago, Kz! said: To clarify, is anyone actually arguing that the FBI hasn't infiltrated all of those "militia" groups? Are people arguing that it wouldn't be significant if we did, indeed, find out that 10-20 FBI informants or agents were involved in the planning and actual act of storming the capitol? 🤣
June 17, 20214 yr J. Edgar Hoover was director of the FBI for 48 years and wore women’s underwear. So I literally believe any story I read about the FBI.* *Except for the ones Kz posts
June 17, 20214 yr 2 minutes ago, Dave Moss said: J. Edgar Hoover was director of the FBI for 48 years and wore women’s underwear. So I literally believe any story I read about the FBI.* *Except for the ones Kz posts So, it's been confirmed that, yes, the FBI has indeed infiltrated those groups. The question isn't if any feds were involved that day, it's kind of how many feds were involved at this point, and what was the extent of their involvement. This is going to get really ugly before it's all over, I have a feeling.
June 17, 20214 yr 12 minutes ago, Kz! said: This has been debunked on here multiple times, but thanks for sharing again. lmfao Show me because In light of this precedent and the context of "Tucker Carlson Tonight,” the Court findsthat Mr. Carlson’s invocation of "extortion” against Ms. McDougal is nonactionable hyperbole, intended to frame the debate in the guest commentator segment that followed Mr. Carlson’s soliloquy. As Defendant notes, Mr. Carlson himself aims to "challenge[] political correctness and media bias.” Def. Br. at 14. This "general tenor” of the show should then inform a viewer that he is not "stating actual facts” about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in Case 1:19-cv-11161-MKV Document 39 Filed 09/24/20 Page 11 of 19 https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2019cv11161/527808/39/
June 17, 20214 yr Just now, Kz! said: So, it's been confirmed that, yes, the FBI has indeed infiltrated those groups. The question isn't if any feds were involved that day, it's kind of how many feds were involved at this point, and what was the extent of their involvement. This is going to get really ugly before it's all over, I have a feeling. We all know how that has worked out for you in the past.
June 17, 20214 yr 19 minutes ago, DaEagles4Life said: Show me because In light of this precedent and the context of "Tucker Carlson Tonight,” the Court findsthat Mr. Carlson’s invocation of "extortion” against Ms. McDougal is nonactionable hyperbole, intended to frame the debate in the guest commentator segment that followed Mr. Carlson’s soliloquy. As Defendant notes, Mr. Carlson himself aims to "challenge[] political correctness and media bias.” Def. Br. at 14. This "general tenor” of the show should then inform a viewer that he is not "stating actual facts” about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in Case 1:19-cv-11161-MKV Document 39 Filed 09/24/20 Page 11 of 19 https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2019cv11161/527808/39/ Yeah, you should actually read up on the case, not just highlighted excerpts from fake news smear jobs. If you read it, the entire argument Fox makes is that Carlson was stating an opinion, not a fact, and that, because he was stating an opinion, cannot be guilty of defamation.
June 17, 20214 yr Just now, Kz! said: Yeah, you should actually read up on the case, not just highlighted excerpts from fake news smear jobs. If you read it, the entire argument Fox makes is that Carlson was stating an opinion, not a fact, and that, because he was stating an opinion, cannot be guilty of defamation. That's his entire show every night though.
June 17, 20214 yr 6 minutes ago, Boogyman said: That's his entire show every night though. Yes, Carlson provides opinion commentary on major news stories every night. That's literally the entire premise of his program. Very good, reply guy.
June 17, 20214 yr 2 minutes ago, Kz! said: Yes, Carlson provides opinion commentary to major news stories every night. That's literally the entire premise of his program. Very good, reply guy. So what's the point of watching, chap? So I know what Tucker thinks about this or that, man? So Tucker can say what he thinks and if it's the same thing I want to think (and it will be because you already know what direction he will lean before watching) I can feel good about myself, dude? I guess some of you empty souls in the world need that confirmation, guy. And sadly there are a lot of you, fella.
June 17, 20214 yr 1 hour ago, vikas83 said: Unless they directly incite or instruct violence, it's protected. That's kind of what I was getting at. They can say whatever they want obviously, I'm just wondering if at any point any ensuing violence is still written off as inconsequential for the sake of ratings.
June 17, 20214 yr 2 minutes ago, Boogyman said: So what's the point of watching, chap? So I know what Tucker thinks about this or that, man? So Tucker can say what he thinks and if it's the same thing I want to think (and it will be because you already know what direction he will lean before watching) I can feel good about myself, dude? I guess some of you empty souls in the world need that confirmation, guy. And sadly there are a lot of you, fella. tribalism noun trib·al·ism | \ ˈtrī-bə-ˌli-zəm \ Definition of tribalism 1: tribal consciousness and loyalty especially : exaltation of the tribe above other groups 2: strong in-group loyalty
June 17, 20214 yr 1 hour ago, VanHammersly said: I'm not sure Gannan's comment was specific to legality though. More on general personal morality among fox news executives and on air personalities.
June 17, 20214 yr Bet money that Jan 6th doesn't happen if not for FNC, OAN, InfoWars, etc. Doesn't mean they are legally liable, but it's still undoubtedly true that they were a necessary component to reach critical mass.
June 17, 20214 yr 1 minute ago, Boogyman said: So what's the point of watching, chap? So I know what Tucker thinks about this or that, man? So Tucker can say what he thinks and if it's the same thing I want to think (and it will be because you already know what direction he will lean before watching) I can feel good about myself, dude? I guess some of you empty souls in the world need that confirmation, guy. And sadly there are a lot of you, fella. He's a masochist. He likes to be humiliated. Tucker feeds him lies. He takes the lies here and humiliates himself. Rinse. Repeat.
June 17, 20214 yr 1 minute ago, Gannan said: More on general personal morality among fox news executives and on air personalities. For them it's as simple as: $$$ > lives lost on Jan 6th.
June 17, 20214 yr Kz! "Tucker thought the same thing about what Joe Biden said as I did. Now I can sleep tonight".
June 17, 20214 yr 53 minutes ago, Kz! said: To clarify, is anyone actually arguing that the FBI hasn't infiltrated all of those "militia" groups? Are people arguing that it wouldn't be significant if we did, indeed, find out that 10-20 FBI informants or agents were involved in the planning and actual act of storming the capitol? I hope to God the FBI is infiltrating terrorists groups still...that's their F'n job. Tucker is making the leap they were behind the storming of the capitol and you're buying the narrative because you have an IQ somewhere around plant life. Anyone with eyes and ears saw President Trump tell his cultists to gather on January 6th and then prompted them to storm the capitol. He even fed them Mike Pence. You always look stupid when you actually try to debate an issue here, but this is definitely a crowning achievement for you. Congrats bro.
Create an account or sign in to comment