From: moviePig <>
Subject: Re: Disney vs. LA Times
Full headers:
Subject: Re: Disney vs. LA Times
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.current-films
References: <otsfd6$77k$>
From: moviePig <>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2017 09:26:29 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 49
Message-ID: <5a046596$0$50471$b1db1813$>
Organization: Unlimited download news at
X-Trace: DXC=K_\G[ZZaKRTI56`<E^G]B^L?0kYOcDh@ZRgC>3k15M[RWm:YORPnLeQ4SY81^Y1GOU>To2Z?E?3jZ_9Nie2[21mV9BU6QZOQR?Q
Print Article
Forward Article
On 11/8/2017 11:49 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> Lewis<> wrote:
>> In message
>>> BTR1701<address_is@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> moviePig<> wrote:
>>>> On 11/8/2017 10:42 AM, william ahearn wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, November 8, 2017 at 10:24:39 AM UTC-5, moviePig wrote:
>>>>>> Well, it does sound like a violation of the *spirit* of the First
>>>>>> Amendment.  Generally, press-events ought not hand-pick the press.
>>>>> Not even close. The press has no "right" to attend an activity
>>>>> sponsored by a corporation.
>>>> 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.
>>> The movie industry has no duty to provide reporters a livelihood.
>> If you think that it's OK for a multi-billion dollar company to try to
>> pervert the news by punishing the press they don't like then you are
>> very much mistaken.
> For all definitions of 'okay' equal to 'legal', no I am not mistaken. What
> Disney did by barring the Times from their own private events did not
> violate any federal, state, county, or local law, statute, regulation or
> constitutional provision.
> You may not like it or think it's 'okay', but Disney had every right to do
> it.
> The remedy, of course, is for all the other media outlets to boycott Disney
> in return, which is what they did, and which is what induced Disney to back
> down.

The dismay is that Disney's barring the Times is plainly 'not okay' yet 
this fact was lost upon those controlling a multi-billion dollar public 
relations industry like Disney.  Their action resonates much too 
strongly with the modern theme of finding low IQs in high places.


- - - - - - - -
   YOUR taste at work...