From: Adam H. Kerman <>
Subject: Re: Disney vs. LA Times
Full headers:
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.current-films
Subject: Re: Disney vs. LA Times
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2017 15:58:01 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <ou1tu9$8g9$>
References: <otsfd6$77k$> <5a032bef$0$33612$b1db1813$> <> <slrnp07804.1gvq.g.kreme@snow.local>
Injection-Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2017 15:58:01 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info:; posting-host="7abf5a35e01cb4dd327272d2188ca9a7";
logging-data="8713"; mail-complaints-to="";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19AZjgm876dcXPpd4SeKGpbMUW66FljGNw="
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:O1kbVNFLRWzje21L603PMLWWO50=
Print Article
Forward Article
Lewis<> wrote:
>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.

I'm going to point this out for the second time in this thread:

obveeus MISREPRESENTED what was stated in the original article. obveeus
falsely stated that the article's writer, Michael Phillips, film critic
Chicago Tribune, made a point about the FIRST AMENDMENT. This is not
true. He quoted a press release from the film critics association that
made several points about FREE PRESS.

If you say FIRST AMENDMENT with regard to publishing, then you are
speaking of the civil right. If you say FREE PRESS with respect to the
subject of news coverage interfering with what's published, and the
subject of news coverage is not a governmental actor, then the civil
right doesn't come into play.

Nevertheless, if the subject of news coverage exerts contol over what is
published, the press isn't free.

I would have phased it as a point of journalistic ethics, but I didn't
write the press release.

The concept of the civil right to publish is a subset of freedom of the
press. Not all press restrictions come from government, as illustrated

Did anyone bother to read the L.A. Times' investigative news story on
the subsidies Anaheim provides to Disneyland? It's pretty damning.