From: Obveeus <Obveeus@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Rotten Tomatoes Under Fire For "Justice League" Review
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin1!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!aioe.org!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: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 15:26:21 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <p06vde$gof$1@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>
<slrnp2c3ss.1rmd.g.kreme@snow.local>
<nM2dnTat-sOInbrHnZ2dnUU7-bnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 20:26:22 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="588c37d433dd274b55f53156e09a7dbc";
logging-data="17167"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/KHMJXYoajMZxhpstQoA2v"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/52.5.0
In-Reply-To: <nM2dnTat-sOInbrHnZ2dnUU7-bnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Cancel-Lock: sha1:XssfZMPhV91d+nIK95Un19kXcyI=
Print Article
Forward Article
On 12/5/2017 3:22 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> Lewis<g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>> In message<bbb19175-1092-400f-92fa-af866430182e@googlegroups.com> Ed
>> Stasiak<estasiak@att.net> 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.

So it becomes a First Amendment issue right after we make up an 
imaginary scenario where the government is involved.  Neat trick.