CFR 73.1274
(a) No licensee or permittee of any broadcast station shall broadcast false information concerning a crime or a catastrophe if: (1) The licensee knows this information is false;-check
(2) It is foreseeable that broadcast of the information will cause substantial public harm, and-check
(3) Broadcast of the information does in fact directly cause substantial public harm.-check
(b) 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.-no disclaimer
(c) For purposes of this rule, “public harm” must begin immediately, and cause direct and actual damage to property or to the health or safety of the general public, or diversion of law enforcement or other public health and safety authorities from their duties. The public harm will be deemed foreseeable if the licensee could expect with a significant degree of certainty that public harm would occur. A “crime” is any act or omission that makes the offender subject to criminal punishment by law. A “catastrophe” is a disaster or imminent disaster involving violent or sudden event affecting the public.-blood libeling conservatives has deadly results, as we have just seen
(1) you have to show the state of mind and prove it.
That means you have to show that the opinion expressed was known to be wrong at the time it was expressed. Good luck with that.
(2) you have to show foreseeability of substantial public harm.
Section (C) tells us that the public harm must begin immediately and cause direct damage. Since no such harm occurred, there is no foreseeability. Especially difficult to prove, even had harm actually occurred, is the standard of "significant degree of certainty the public harm would occur." Nothing "immediate" happened.
(3) you have to show direct cause of actual harm
no harm, no foul
The assertion "blood libeling conservatives has deadly results, as we have just seen" is an absurdity. You haven't "shown" anything by concluding that something has been "seen." Asserting a slogan, a shibboleth, does not make it so. There has been no actual "blood libeling by the comedian. A distasteful remark is not a blood libel, indeed, the concept of "blood libel" has no justiciable meaning.
The fact that the program is a comedy show and not a news program affords the actor greater latitude.
Finally, Kimmel himself is neither a licensee nor permittee. The licensee cannot be shown to have violated any of the above discussed clauses.
