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: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 15:26:21 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <p06vde$gof$>
References: <ova1d5$8gq$>
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:; posting-host="588c37d433dd274b55f53156e09a7dbc";
logging-data="17167"; mail-complaints-to="";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/KHMJXYoajMZxhpstQoA2v"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Language: en-US
Cancel-Lock: sha1:XssfZMPhV91d+nIK95Un19kXcyI=
Print Article
Forward Article
On 12/5/2017 3:22 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> 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.

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