From: BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid>
Subject: Re: Rotten Tomatoes Under Fire For "Justice League" Review
Full headers:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2017 14:22:45 -0600
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.2.6 (iPhone/iPod Touch)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:O309nFECNS/s0WOhB/SdHgufosY=
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.current-films
Subject: Re: Rotten Tomatoes Under Fire For "Justice League" Review
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid>
References: <ova1d5$8gq$>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2017 14:22:45 -0600
Lines: 27
X-Trace: sv3-x053jSgmg/UeJBccx0EQoO33Nkf/gohAQVoTxK/7u31DuvMN84/FhC3T0XiBRvAYS6LjoqJ/I3bstnl!U+iHdtpUz7jumAjxtJXItvjboRk0rcZNgu65OR93P0JKKC2YjZEOXLZEsqxNuFEdGlhr23QDl2Ef
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 2760
X-Received-Body-CRC: 390916093
X-Received-Bytes: 2971
Print Article
Forward Article
Lewis<> wrote:
> In message<> 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. Not in any imaginable way.

You apparently have a very limited imagination. It would be a 1st Amendment
issue because if the studios are indeed asserting a right to control what
movie critics say about their product, then the implication is that if it's
a right, it must be guaranteed and enforced by the government or its a
meaningless as a right. And the idea of the government enforcing such
nonsense is indeed a 1st Amendment issue.