From: Ed Stasiak <>
Subject: Re: Rotten Tomatoes Under Fire For "Justice League" Review
Full headers:
X-Received: by with SMTP id j126mr7982437ite.27.1512536404802;
Tue, 05 Dec 2017 21:00:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by with SMTP id t90mr913629ota.5.1512536404687; Tue,
05 Dec 2017 21:00:04 -0800 (PST)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.current-films
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 21:00:04 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <p04gqt$j9$>
Injection-Info:; posting-host=;
References: <ova1d5$8gq$> <>
<slrnp1r7li.1mdf.g.kreme@jaka.lan> <>
<slrnp271jp.qub.g.kreme@snow.local> <>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Rotten Tomatoes Under Fire For "Justice League" Review
From: Ed Stasiak <>
Injection-Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2017 05:00:04 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 30
Print Article
Forward Article

> Obveeus
> > Ed Stasiak
> >
> > > _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 a First Amendment issue.

Then please explain the use of the word “empowered”?

Because I read that as the studios/networks planning on using copyright laws
to try and control what journalists can say about their movies/tv shows and
once it goes to a government court room, it IS a 1st Amendment issue and
the studios/networks can go piss up a rope.

> they are simply not giving reviewers pre-release access to their property.. 

Which I mentioned up-thread and which doesn’t translate as “empowered”.

The studios can deny critics previews of their movies or they can try to get
critics to sign some kinda “controlled disclosure” agreement but that’s their
own options, otherwise critics can say whatever they please about a movie.