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 23:40:19 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <p057vi$uje$2@dont-email.me>
References: <ova1d5$8gq$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<49bcf90d-4834-43d5-a261-15ea8f06607d@googlegroups.com>
<slrnp1r7li.1mdf.g.kreme@jaka.lan>
<4e10b631-c022-4212-af7c-32a9c8ff1153@googlegroups.com>
<slrnp271jp.qub.g.kreme@snow.local>
<bbb19175-1092-400f-92fa-af866430182e@googlegroups.com>
<p04gqt$j9$1@dont-email.me> <slrnp2c3u2.1rmd.g.kreme@snow.local>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 04:40:18 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="588c37d433dd274b55f53156e09a7dbc";
logging-data="31342"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19F6TCzNi+nPgFGhU0tBx+f"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/52.5.0
In-Reply-To: <slrnp2c3u2.1rmd.g.kreme@snow.local>
Content-Language: en-US
Cancel-Lock: sha1:o/Zra7wRbBQkSHtqhS9C0Nxcq+8=
Print Article
Forward Article
On 12/4/2017 10:17 PM, Lewis wrote:
> In message <p04gqt$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.

I didn't say it would.