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!kreme.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.current-films
Subject: Re: Rotten Tomatoes Under Fire For "Justice League" Review
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 03:17:22 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: Miskatonic U
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <slrnp2c3u2.1rmd.g.kreme@snow.local>
References: <ova1d5$8gq$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<49bcf90d-4834-43d5-a261-15ea8f06607d@googlegroups.com>
<slrnp1r7li.1mdf.g.kreme@jaka.lan>
<4e10b631-c022-4212-af7c-32a9c8ff1153@googlegroups.com>
<slrnp271jp.qub.g.kreme@snow.local>
<bbb19175-1092-400f-92fa-af866430182e@googlegroups.com>
<p04gqt$j9$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 03:17:22 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: kreme.eternal-september.org; posting-host="66db068922e5a18c3fb3c7a6ec599288";
logging-data="7055"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18Mgg0wnTRY2Fip3+A0WY1+"
User-Agent: slrn/1.0.2 (Darwin)
X-Face: )^b5"R:T7U>9~:PEn3YkzMfW*[b1qKeU.fP9C8~8HpU9}lA&6`bH1z
Cancel-Lock: sha1:duunemWTeJ7cFs3vD/LNK0sGnPU=
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
Mail-Copies-To: nobody
Print Article
Forward Article
In message <p04gqt$j9$1@dont-email.me> Obveeus<Obveeus@aol.com> wrote:


> 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,

Which would *also* not be a First Amendment issue.

-- 
Yes, I do happen to believe that love is mainly about pushing chocolate
covered candies and, y'know, in some cultures, a chicken. You can call
me a sucker, I don't care, because I do believe in it. Bottom line: it's
couples who are truly right for each other that wade through the same
crap as everybody else, but the big difference is they don't let it take
them down. One of those two people will stand up and fight for that
relationship every time. If it's right, and they're real lucky, one of
them will say something.