From: Ed Stasiak <>
Subject: Re: Rotten Tomatoes Under Fire For "Justice League" Review
Full headers:
X-Received: by with SMTP id f188mr4424169ita.37.1512423050447;
Mon, 04 Dec 2017 13:30:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by with SMTP id h3mr710549oti.10.1512423050339; Mon,
04 Dec 2017 13:30:50 -0800 (PST)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.current-films
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 13:30:50 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <slrnp271jp.qub.g.kreme@snow.local>
Injection-Info:; posting-host=;
References: <ova1d5$8gq$> <>
<slrnp1r7li.1mdf.g.kreme@jaka.lan> <>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Rotten Tomatoes Under Fire For "Justice League" Review
From: Ed Stasiak <>
Injection-Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2017 21:30:50 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 17
X-Received-Body-CRC: 1573263850
X-Received-Bytes: 2263
Print Article
Forward Article

> Lewis
> > Ed Stasiak
> >
> > Unless the film critic signed some kinda “approved disclosure” agreement, 
> > they’re free to say whatever they want about the movie or tv show. 
> Either way, has *nothing* to do with the 1st Amendment. 

“More than just a kerfuffle over one superhero movie, the incident raises 
larger questions about the relationship between reviewers and the public,
the editorial objectivity of aggregators and how much studios should be
_empowered to control the pre-release messaging_ of their films.”

The above implies the studios have some kinda right to control what
movie critics say about their flicks and that IS a 1st Amendment issue.