From: Obveeus <Obveeus@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Rotten Tomatoes Under Fire For "Justice League" Review
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin2!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Obveeus <Obveeus@aol.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.current-films
Subject: Re: Rotten Tomatoes Under Fire For "Justice League" Review
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 17:05:18 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <p04gqt$j9$1@dont-email.me>
References: <ova1d5$8gq$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<49bcf90d-4834-43d5-a261-15ea8f06607d@googlegroups.com>
<slrnp1r7li.1mdf.g.kreme@jaka.lan>
<4e10b631-c022-4212-af7c-32a9c8ff1153@googlegroups.com>
<slrnp271jp.qub.g.kreme@snow.local>
<bbb19175-1092-400f-92fa-af866430182e@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 22:05:17 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="3767d4efd8b777f0c32d1b94608538a6";
logging-data="617"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+BwYDfoFURVcYfcuGHwhV1"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/52.5.0
In-Reply-To: <bbb19175-1092-400f-92fa-af866430182e@googlegroups.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Cancel-Lock: sha1:WN9Vue+Skhq9pEc4gTEWx2JY+kA=
Print Article
Forward Article
On 12/4/2017 4:30 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>> 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.

No, it is not a First Amendment issue.   The studio is not preventing 
reviewers from saying whatever they want about the film, they are simply 
not giving reviewers pre-release access to their property.