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.
