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 16:52:25 -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 16:52:25 -0600
Lines: 41
X-Trace: sv3-ND8kXOt+Isuuqm39r1FBaDRVnOl80i5PGqmDJGu1rrGBuSvVbLk1AlLwV00VEuL+vrlVSaSd3/N7OV0!St4UakOXDcyegjaj0jhDv3XC18PNjolV2WzxV+bk4xP56sNS5mpHFxFEYPLGg+zz02T4LRSAQNuw
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: 3355
Print Article
Forward Article
Obveeus<> wrote:
> 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 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