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: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 09:00:37 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 48
Message-ID: <p08t64$ps1$>
References: <ova1d5$8gq$>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 14:00:37 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info:; posting-host="81a6c8d6c712d39952bb9f659fe67fc6";
logging-data="26497"; mail-complaints-to="";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19p3KN8Z1zPwSVispFiF0OM"
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:tdBF7AgVNYinV7k5ObjSN3Joy3U=
Print Article
Forward Article
On 12/6/2017 12:00 AM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>> 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”?

The use of the word 'empowered' seems to be a claim that Warner 
Brother's partisal ownership of RottenTomatoes allows them to control 
the aggregate review process for their films.  it has absolutely nothing 
to do with the government breaking down doors of reviewers, arresting 
them, and hauling them off to reeducation camps.

You have demonstrated a longstanding inability to understand what the 
First Amendment is all about.  At issue in the first Amendment is the 
GOVERNMENT control of speech, not any private citizen's or company's 
control of speech.  This has been repeatedly explained to you.  Why do 
you refuse to accept the truth?

> 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.

So, you read it wrong and made up a scenario to fit your wet dream.  The 
simple fact is, the studio is under no obligation to give reporters 
advanced access to their films for pre-release review.  Additionally, 
Rottentomatoes is under no obligation to re-print reviews or to include 
reviews from any particular outlet if they do not want to.

>> 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.