Subject: Re: Disney vs. LA Times
On 11/8/2017 11:49 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> Lewis<email@example.com> wrote:
>> In message
>>> BTR1701<firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>> moviePig<email@example.com> 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
> 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
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...