From: Obveeus <>
Subject: Re: Rotten Tomatoes Under Fire For "Justice League" Review
Full headers:
From: Obveeus <>
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$uje$>
References: <ova1d5$8gq$>
<p04gqt$j9$> <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:; posting-host="588c37d433dd274b55f53156e09a7dbc";
logging-data="31342"; mail-complaints-to="";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19F6TCzNi+nPgFGhU0tBx+f"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
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$j9$> Obveeus<> 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.