From: william ahearn <>
Subject: Re: Disney vs. LA Times
Full headers:
X-Received: by with SMTP id i137mr2321215itf.43.1510158351766;
Wed, 08 Nov 2017 08:25:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by with SMTP id u52mr116078otd.6.1510158351676; Wed,
08 Nov 2017 08:25:51 -0800 (PST)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.current-films
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 08:25:51 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <5a032bef$0$33612$b1db1813$>
Injection-Info:; posting-host=; posting-account=4C3ScwoAAAA2wbWb7EB6D20HjAcd2OwZ
References: <otsfd6$77k$> <5a03224b$0$18141$b1db1813$>
<> <5a032bef$0$33612$b1db1813$>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Disney vs. LA Times
From: william ahearn <>
Injection-Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2017 16:25:51 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 17
Print Article
Forward Article
On Wednesday, November 8, 2017 at 11:08:18 AM UTC-5, moviePig wrote:

> Not if it's a wedding or a vacation holiday.  But the impending release 
> of big movies are by definition a matter of public interest, and timely 
> reporting on them is the livelihood of a press segment.  While it seems 
> (somewhat) reasonable that studios may occasionally cherry-pick certain 
> reviewers for an *extra*-advanced screening, the usual press-only 
> Monday(?) screenings seem more subject to the aforementioned "spirit".
Absolute rubbish. What if the studio doesn't have a press screening? Does that become a supreme
court case? A movie opening is in the "public interest"? That's crazy. It's commerce plain and
simple and has no first amendment protection. You're way in the weeds, mPig.