Subject: Re: Rotten Tomatoes Under Fire For "Justice League" Review
> On 12/5/2017 3:22 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> Lewis<email@example.com> wrote:
>>> In message<firstname.lastname@example.org> Ed
>>> Stasiak<email@example.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 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 it's
>> 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.
The government *has* to be involved for it to be a right. Otherwise it's
just the studi stamping its virtual foot and whining impotently. A right
not guaranteed by the government is for all practical purposes no right at