Byron Allen Offers to Buy BET From Paramount Global for $3.5 Billion

[Sir Richard Spirit]

I'm reading this and trying to figure out when in American history this law could have ever been invoked and gotten the desired result IYO?

That’s why he was being asked not to pursue it.. how was he suppose to get the desired results? He was being selfish, hoping to get something out of Comcast.

 

[UpNext]

That’s why he was being asked not to pursue it.. how was he suppose to get the desired results? He was being selfish, hoping to get something out of Comcast.

He was being asked not to pursue it because the law was ineffective and would have never worked for anyone trying to use it in the first place?

 

[Sir Richard Spirit]

He was being asked not to pursue it because the law was ineffective and would have never worked for anyone trying to use it in the first place?

He was asked not to pursue it because of the precedent it would set.

 

[Amestafuu (Emeritus)]

If you've got that kind of money to spend on a network, why not just start one from the ground up? That way you start with a clean slate and can make your own mark. Only thing is, is getting an FCC license difficult/expensive? Is that why the price offered is so high?

he already did start some shyt

he can merge them and cross promote programming and eat of BET back catalogue as well and it's brand while marketing his shows that are for the same demographic

 

[Afrodroid]

People still watch tv

Mad people watch tv, it's still very profitable marketing

 

[UpNext]

He was asked not to pursue it because of the precedent it would set.

The precedent of not being able to use a law in a way that never would have worked in American history? Even the narrative in that article seems off. They mention bringing the law to a Conservative Supreme Court but the decision was bipartisan unanimous

 

[ORDER_66]

So what was the outcome of this situation???

 

[Sir Richard Spirit]

The precedent of not being able to use a law in a way that never would have worked in American history? Even the narrative in that article seems off. They mention bringing the law to a Conservative Supreme Court but the decision was bipartisan unanimous

Why did he file a lawsuit and go through with it knowing what you’re saying?

 

[No1]

The precedent of not being able to use a law in a way that never would have worked in American history? Even the narrative in that article seems off. They mention bringing the law to a Conservative Supreme Court but the decision was bipartisan unanimous

No. So at different times in history courts get involved in law-making and create standards for determining things like discrimination. They will create standards such as strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny or “rationally related.” What they were telling Byron is that the current precedent of how Courts interpreted the law was more lenient but a right-wing court would jump at the chance to reverse the precedent and increase the threshold, and that’s exactly what happened. So any court interpreting that federal law would be forced to defer to the standard set by the highest court instead of relying on the standards of their own federal district as they had been doing because of ambiguity and lack of uniformity in interpretation.

 

[Gloxina]

People still watch tv

Cable is a stable.


I literally watch like HBO and a few other things and I still have 1000 channels.

Never know when those 20 news channels, etc will come in handy

 

[UpNext]

Why did he file a lawsuit and go through with it knowing what you’re saying?

I don't think he knew what the outcome would be and he had already won cases in the lower courts. I think it's more of a strike on the activists and black pundits of today that they wagged their finger at him pushing boundaries rather than getting behind him and fighting with him

 

[Born2BKing]

Hope he gets it and removes all the c00n shyt and uses it to promote education and musical instruments to kids

 

[Sir Richard Spirit]

I don't think he knew what the outcome would be and he had already won cases in the lower courts. I think it's more of a strike on the activists and black pundits of today that they wagged their finger at him pushing boundaries rather than getting behind him and fighting with him

There wasn’t much to fight. How many black people were having the same issue with Comcast? Puff didn’t even want to speak on it until Byron thew him under the bus. This was a personal gain for Byron Allen. That’s all.

 

[UpNext]

No. So at different times in history courts get involved in law-making and create standards for determining things like discrimination. They will create standards such as strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny or “rationally related.” What they were telling Byron is that the current precedent of how Courts interpreted the law was more lenient but a right-wing court would jump at the chance to reverse the precedent and increase the threshold, and that’s exactly what happened. So any court interpreting that federal law would be forced to defer to the standard set by the highest court instead of relying on the standards of their own federal district as they had been doing because of ambiguity and lack of uniformity in interpretation.

So, hypothetically speaking, at what point in American history should Byron Allen have filed his case?

 

[Amestafuu (Emeritus)]

I'm reading this and trying to figure out when in American history this law could have ever been invoked and gotten the desired result IYO?

it seems the actual issue was taking the case to a conservative strong supreme court and risking the L in the first place, which those with insight on the law and current climate understood was a bad play... Him losing to that technicality opened up a loophole to weaken the law and make it ineffective as has now happened thru its reinterpretation by the maga force in the highest court. essentially it could have been invoked safely only before the case got to the supreme court. because at this times in history the court is stacked with kkkonservatives and has a glaring imbalance, no impartiality and an obvious agenda.

All this shyt ties back to the why voting matters discussions were had here for many years preceding Obama and post him. This is the legacy of Trump's win and the damage his election is STILL doing and will continue to do EVEN WITHOUT A RE-ELECTION. while people were yelling no tangibles no votes Trump set up actual tangibles that already existed to be taken away. After all that was the whole idea behind making America great again. Regressing to open discrimination without protections in society. HOW? ROLL BACK THE CHANGES THAT TRANSFORMED AMERICA IN THE CIVIL RIGHTS ERA, they long for jim crow. Discrimination that is systematic is now commonly denied as existing and speaking of it is termed "woke" in the white b*stardized way that they repurposed the word. the protections of the civil rights era for voting and civility are disappearing. Affirmative Action was challenged and erased. The Supreme court is challenging the government on Black led federal initiatives trying to paint them as discriminatory. Now the law that set the standard is weakened as a byproduct of a case that wasn't even of huge notability yet played a crucial role is taking the teeth away.

There's a lot of plays set in motion many moments ahead of time that lay the foundation for what the future looks like. Something the non voters amongst us don't understand or care to understand when they say they get nothing for their vote or opting out is a choice. This future was wrote in those moments. For all the love of conspiracy the brehs have here they don't see the obvious sleight of hand too busy worrying about the white man controlling the weather and shyt like they mystical when they just conniving. the plan was always laid out in the acronym MAGA. Regress America to a time when open racism thrived. dismantle protections.

So let the goofs still tell you voting doesn't matter. They have no foresight. Trumps election will be affecting America for decades...