Subject: Re: Rotten Tomatoes Under Fire For "Justice League" Review
Full headers:
From: Lewis <>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.current-films
Subject: Re: Rotten Tomatoes Under Fire For "Justice League" Review
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 03:16:44 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: Miskatonic U
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <slrnp2c3ss.1rmd.g.kreme@snow.local>
References: <ova1d5$8gq$>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 03:16:44 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info:; posting-host="66db068922e5a18c3fb3c7a6ec599288";
logging-data="7055"; mail-complaints-to="";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/W8UtXQosbnt1FJpmMyE2j"
User-Agent: slrn/1.0.2 (Darwin)
X-Face: )^b5"R:T7U>9~:PEn3YkzMfW*[b1qKeU.fP9C8~8HpU9}lA&6`bH1z
Cancel-Lock: sha1:hdMkpD+s9CW3qHU5M7NjFMNenRs=
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
Mail-Copies-To: nobody
Print Article
Forward Article
In message<> Ed Stasiak<>
>> 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. Not in any imaginable way. Perhaps you should *read* the
First Amendment.

It's better to burn out than it is to rust -- Neil Young as quoted be
Kurt Cobain