> Prev
From: Alan Smithee <alms@last.inc>
Subject: Rotten Tomatoes Under Fire For "Justice League" Review
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin2!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!feeders.as203319.net!feeder03.as203319.net!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Alan Smithee <alms@last.inc>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.current-films
Subject: Rotten Tomatoes Under Fire For "Justice League" Review
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2017 17:02:31 -0400
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Lines: 45
Message-ID: <ova1d5$8gq$1@gioia.aioe.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hSAAMKC2lQH+hnHJz4lfUA.user.gioia.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.0
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Print Article
Forward Article
The movie-review aggregator waited more than 24 hours to post a poor 
critics' score for the new Warner Bros. film "Justice League," breaking 
with tradition of posting right after a studio-imposed ban. It incensed 
critics and fans alike.

Fueling the fire: WB parent Time Warner owns a 30 percent stake in 
Rotten Tomatoes.

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.

"I think we need more transparency and equality on Rotten Tomatoes," 
said Guy Lodge, a critic who contributes to Variety. "An aggregation 
site should practice absolute objectivity. You mix Time Warner into it," 
he added, "and it becomes very confusing."

A Rotten Tomatoes spokeswoman declined to provide a comment for this 
story, as did a WB spokeswoman.

With a budget approaching $300 million, "Justice League" is among the 
most expensive movies ever made. Warner Bros. has a lot riding on the DC 
Comics film, seeking its own ensemble superhero blockbuster to rival the 
"Avengers" series from Disney/Marvel.

The Rotten Tomatoes affair began when the site postponed its release of 
the "Justice League" critics' score — the percentage of reviewers who 
certify a movie as "fresh," or good — from late Tuesday to early 
Thursday, just hours before the movie was to begin playing in theaters. 
The move was rare, but the site said it wanted to reveal the number on a 
new Facebook video segment. The score would turn out to be a subpar 43 
percent.

Some saw the withholding of the score, which was widely expected to be 
low, as an attempt to bury bad news about a sister company and not deter 
ticket sales ahead of opening weekend.

"Warner Bros is a minority owner of Rotten Tomatoes' parent company. I 
respect a lot of people who work there but this is a BAD bad look," 
Katey Rich, a VanityFair.com editor, tweeted. Rotten Tomatoes is owned 
by the ticket-sale site Fandango, of which Warner Bros. owns 30 percent 
and Comcast Universal owns 70 percent.

http://newsok.com/rotten-tomatoes-under-fire-for-timing-of-justice-... 

	
From: RichA <rander3128@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Rotten Tomatoes Under Fire For "Justice League" Review
Full headers:
X-Received: by 10.36.172.79 with SMTP id m15mr10766401iti.36.1511606948723;
Sat, 25 Nov 2017 02:49:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.157.95.5 with SMTP id f5mr1331980oti.9.1511606948617; Sat,
25 Nov 2017 02:49:08 -0800 (PST)
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!peer01.am4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!d140no5965041itd.0!news-out.google.com!193ni1838iti.0!nntp.google.com!d140no5965038itd.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.current-films
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2017 02:49:08 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <ova1d5$8gq$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=65.94.54.197; posting-account=8Vsz_woAAABQPV3Epo66m_rYvK1EHzOV
NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.94.54.197
References: <ova1d5$8gq$1@gioia.aioe.org>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <479f0dfb-0849-4806-af7f-17fedec964ec@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Rotten Tomatoes Under Fire For "Justice League" Review
From: RichA <rander3128@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2017 10:49:08 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Body-CRC: 1191592256
X-Received-Bytes: 3981
Print Article
Forward Article
On Friday, 24 November 2017 16:02:37 UTC-5, Alan Smithee  wrote:
> The movie-review aggregator waited more than 24 hours to post a poor 
> critics' score for the new Warner Bros. film "Justice League," breaking 
> with tradition of posting right after a studio-imposed ban. It incensed 
> critics and fans alike.
> 
> Fueling the fire: WB parent Time Warner owns a 30 percent stake in 
> Rotten Tomatoes.
> 
> 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.
> 
> "I think we need more transparency and equality on Rotten Tomatoes," 
> said Guy Lodge, a critic who contributes to Variety. "An aggregation 
> site should practice absolute objectivity. You mix Time Warner into it," 
> he added, "and it becomes very confusing."
> 
> A Rotten Tomatoes spokeswoman declined to provide a comment for this 
> story, as did a WB spokeswoman.
> 
> With a budget approaching $300 million, "Justice League" is among the 
> most expensive movies ever made. Warner Bros. has a lot riding on the DC 
> Comics film, seeking its own ensemble superhero blockbuster to rival the 
> "Avengers" series from Disney/Marvel.
> 
> The Rotten Tomatoes affair began when the site postponed its release of 
> the "Justice League" critics' score — the percentage of reviewers who 
> certify a movie as "fresh," or good — from late Tuesday to early 
> Thursday, just hours before the movie was to begin playing in theaters. 
> The move was rare, but the site said it wanted to reveal the number on a 
> new Facebook video segment. The score would turn out to be a subpar 43 
> percent.
> 
> Some saw the withholding of the score, which was widely expected to be 
> low, as an attempt to bury bad news about a sister company and not deter 
> ticket sales ahead of opening weekend.
> 
> "Warner Bros is a minority owner of Rotten Tomatoes' parent company. I 
> respect a lot of people who work there but this is a BAD bad look," 
> Katey Rich, a VanityFair.com editor, tweeted. Rotten Tomatoes is owned 
> by the ticket-sale site Fandango, of which Warner Bros. owns 30 percent 
> and Comcast Universal owns 70 percent.
> 
> http://newsok.com/rotten-tomatoes-under-fire-for-timing-of-justice-...

Beyond the old paid press junkets that ensured whore reviewers towed the line.  Now the whole site
is "owned." 

	
From: The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Rotten Tomatoes Under Fire For "Justice League" Review
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.current-films
Subject: Re: Rotten Tomatoes Under Fire For "Justice League" Review
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2017 09:52:25 -0800
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Lines: 49
Message-ID: <5A19ADD9.4ACD@ix.netcom.com>
References: <ova1d5$8gq$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Reply-To: starmaker@ix.netcom.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: X9ItFNC7Zcz4l6MobL/YRA.user.gioia.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (WinNT; U)
X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 171125-0, 11/25/2017), Outbound message
Print Article
Forward Article
Alan Smithee wrote:
> 
> The movie-review aggregator waited more than 24 hours to post a poor
> critics' score for the new Warner Bros. film "Justice League," breaking
> with tradition of posting right after a studio-imposed ban. It incensed
> critics and fans alike.
> 
> Fueling the fire: WB parent Time Warner owns a 30 percent stake in
> Rotten Tomatoes.
> 
> 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.
> 
> "I think we need more transparency and equality on Rotten Tomatoes,"
> said Guy Lodge, a critic who contributes to Variety. "An aggregation
> site should practice absolute objectivity. You mix Time Warner into it,"
> he added, "and it becomes very confusing."
> 
> A Rotten Tomatoes spokeswoman declined to provide a comment for this
> story, as did a WB spokeswoman.
> 
> With a budget approaching $300 million, "Justice League" is among the
> most expensive movies ever made. Warner Bros. has a lot riding on the DC
> Comics film, seeking its own ensemble superhero blockbuster to rival the
> "Avengers" series from Disney/Marvel.
> 
> The Rotten Tomatoes affair began when the site postponed its release of
> the "Justice League" critics' score — the percentage of reviewers who
> certify a movie as "fresh," or good — from late Tuesday to early
> Thursday, just hours before the movie was to begin playing in theaters.
> The move was rare, but the site said it wanted to reveal the number on a
> new Facebook video segment. The score would turn out to be a subpar 43
> percent.
> 
> Some saw the withholding of the score, which was widely expected to be
> low, as an attempt to bury bad news about a sister company and not deter
> ticket sales ahead of opening weekend.
> 
> "Warner Bros is a minority owner of Rotten Tomatoes' parent company. I
> respect a lot of people who work there but this is a BAD bad look,"
> Katey Rich, a VanityFair.com editor, tweeted. Rotten Tomatoes is owned
> by the ticket-sale site Fandango, of which Warner Bros. owns 30 percent
> and Comcast Universal owns 70 percent.
> 
> http://newsok.com/rotten-tomatoes-under-fire-for-timing-of-justice-...

rotten tomatoes are rotten tomatoes. 

	
From: Ed Stasiak <estasiak@att.net>
Subject: Re: Rotten Tomatoes Under Fire For "Justice League" Review
Full headers:
X-Received: by 10.36.165.1 with SMTP id k1mr16092239itf.41.1511805883552;
Mon, 27 Nov 2017 10:04:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.157.83.199 with SMTP id i7mr881910oth.3.1511805883433; Mon,
27 Nov 2017 10:04:43 -0800 (PST)
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin3!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!peer02.am4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!i6no7600186itb.0!news-out.google.com!193ni4760iti.0!nntp.google.com!193no1192652itr.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.current-films
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 10:04:43 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <ova1d5$8gq$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=24.192.140.152;
posting-account=Ixrd5gkAAABsU4dRz0UR13K3JpdoZL-Z
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.192.140.152
References: <ova1d5$8gq$1@gioia.aioe.org>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <49bcf90d-4834-43d5-a261-15ea8f06607d@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Rotten Tomatoes Under Fire For "Justice League" Review
From: Ed Stasiak <estasiak@att.net>
Injection-Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 18:04:43 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Body-CRC: 3357642195
X-Received-Bytes: 1773
Print Article
Forward Article

> Alan Smithee
>
> 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. 

Not at all, it’s called the 1st Amendment.

The movie studio can simply stop providing preview viewings to critics
if they don’t like what they’re saying. 

	
From: RichA <rander3128@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Rotten Tomatoes Under Fire For "Justice League" Review
Full headers:
X-Received: by 10.107.8.26 with SMTP id 26mr24125624ioi.27.1511818676902;
Mon, 27 Nov 2017 13:37:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.157.14.137 with SMTP id 9mr326229otj.14.1511818676757; Mon,
27 Nov 2017 13:37:56 -0800 (PST)
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin2!goblin1!news.mi.ras.ru!goblin.stu.neva.ru!peer03.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer02.am4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!193no1331053itr.0!news-out.google.com!x87ni5528ita.0!nntp.google.com!i6no7737975itb.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.current-films
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 13:37:56 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <49bcf90d-4834-43d5-a261-15ea8f06607d@googlegroups.com>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=184.75.212.29;
posting-account=8Vsz_woAAABQPV3Epo66m_rYvK1EHzOV
NNTP-Posting-Host: 184.75.212.29
References: <ova1d5$8gq$1@gioia.aioe.org> <49bcf90d-4834-43d5-a261-15ea8f06607d@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <54bd2db1-447c-45a2-96b5-b7cae214320c@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Rotten Tomatoes Under Fire For "Justice League" Review
From: RichA <rander3128@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:37:56 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 16
X-Received-Body-CRC: 3352095498
X-Received-Bytes: 2085
Print Article
Forward Article
On Monday, 27 November 2017 13:04:46 UTC-5, Ed Stasiak  wrote:
> > Alan Smithee
> >
> > 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.. 
> 
> Not at all, it’s called the 1st Amendment.
> 
> The movie studio can simply stop providing preview viewings to critics
> if they don’t like what they’re saying.

Legally, sure.  Ethically, no. 

	
Subject: Re: Rotten Tomatoes Under Fire For "Justice League" Review
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!kreme.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.current-films
Subject: Re: Rotten Tomatoes Under Fire For "Justice League" Review
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 17:36:50 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: Miskatonic U
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <slrnp1r7li.1mdf.g.kreme@jaka.lan>
References: <ova1d5$8gq$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<49bcf90d-4834-43d5-a261-15ea8f06607d@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 17:36:50 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: kreme.eternal-september.org; posting-host="3c197d0c3347940ea1a3152d60d9bc59";
logging-data="25815"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/CGBiQFTJgfEbEFn9UpBPd"
User-Agent: slrn/1.0.3 (Darwin)
X-Face: )^b5"R:T7U>9~:PEn3YkzMfW*[b1qKeU.fP9C8~8HpU9}lA&6`bH1z
Cancel-Lock: sha1:NPXIgTUb85xTYbOndfLQ/3powT4=
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
Mail-Copies-To: nobody
Print Article
Forward Article
In message<49bcf90d-4834-43d5-a261-15ea8f06607d@googlegroups.com> Ed Stasiak<estasiak@att.net>
wrote:
>> Alan Smithee
>>
>> 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. 

> Not at all, it’s called the 1st Amendment.

No it is not.

> The movie studio can simply stop providing preview viewings to critics
> if they don’t like what they’re saying.

They can, if they are spectacularly stupid.

-- 
By the way, I think you might be the prettiest girl I've ever seen
outside the pages of a really filthy magazine 

	
From: Alan Smithee <alms@last.inc>
Subject: Re: Rotten Tomatoes Under Fire For "Justice League" Review
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Alan Smithee <alms@last.inc>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.current-films
Subject: Re: Rotten Tomatoes Under Fire For "Justice League" Review
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 22:05:54 -0400
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <ovl4m0$jnq$2@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <ova1d5$8gq$1@gioia.aioe.org> <49bcf90d-4834-43d5-a261-15ea8f06607d@googlegroups.com> <slrnp1r7li.1mdf.g.kreme@jaka.lan>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hSAAMKC2lQH+hnHJz4lfUA.user.gioia.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.0
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Print Article
Forward Article
On 11/28/2017 01:36 PM, Lewis wrote:
> In message<49bcf90d-4834-43d5-a261-15ea8f06607d@googlegroups.com> Ed Stasiak<estasiak@att.net>
wrote:
>>> Alan Smithee
>>>
>>> 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.
>
>> Not at all, it’s called the 1st Amendment.
>
> No it is not.
>
>> The movie studio can simply stop providing preview viewings to critics
>> if they don’t like what they’re saying.
>
> They can, if they are spectacularly stupid.

is there any doubt... 

	
From: Ed Stasiak <estasiak@att.net>
Subject: Re: Rotten Tomatoes Under Fire For "Justice League" Review
Full headers:
X-Received: by 10.36.189.131 with SMTP id x125mr4894499ite.37.1512277041949;
Sat, 02 Dec 2017 20:57:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.157.69.72 with SMTP id p8mr468591oti.4.1512277041862; Sat,
02 Dec 2017 20:57:21 -0800 (PST)
Path: news.netfront.net!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!i6no1828698itb.0!news-out.google.com!s63ni1558itb.0!nntp.google.com!i6no1828694itb.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.current-films
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2017 20:57:21 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <slrnp1r7li.1mdf.g.kreme@jaka.lan>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=24.192.140.152;
posting-account=Ixrd5gkAAABsU4dRz0UR13K3JpdoZL-Z
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.192.140.152
References: <ova1d5$8gq$1@gioia.aioe.org> <49bcf90d-4834-43d5-a261-15ea8f06607d@googlegroups.com>
<slrnp1r7li.1mdf.g.kreme@jaka.lan>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <4e10b631-c022-4212-af7c-32a9c8ff1153@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Rotten Tomatoes Under Fire For "Justice League" Review
From: Ed Stasiak <estasiak@att.net>
Injection-Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2017 04:57:21 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 19
Print Article
Forward Article

> Lewis
> > Ed Stasiak
> >
> > Not at all, it’s called the 1st Amendment. 
>
> No it is not. 

Unless the film critic signed some kinda “approved disclosure” agreement,
they’re free to say whatever they want about the movie or tv show.

> > The movie studio can simply stop providing preview viewings to critics 
> > if they don’t like what they’re saying. 
>
> They can, if they are spectacularly stupid. 

Personally, I find it insulting that film “critics” get an exclusive preview but
that’s the studio’s choice. 

	
Subject: Re: Rotten Tomatoes Under Fire For "Justice League" Review
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!kreme.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.current-films
Subject: Re: Rotten Tomatoes Under Fire For "Justice League" Review
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 05:07:05 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: Miskatonic U
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <slrnp271jp.qub.g.kreme@snow.local>
References: <ova1d5$8gq$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<49bcf90d-4834-43d5-a261-15ea8f06607d@googlegroups.com>
<slrnp1r7li.1mdf.g.kreme@jaka.lan>
<4e10b631-c022-4212-af7c-32a9c8ff1153@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 05:07:05 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: kreme.eternal-september.org; posting-host="1ce0d7e89e71bc7af6e6c6d210697f90";
logging-data="2687"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/DIiRGcnlCqkB2JKdNzwUQ"
User-Agent: slrn/1.0.2 (Darwin)
X-Face: )^b5"R:T7U>9~:PEn3YkzMfW*[b1qKeU.fP9C8~8HpU9}lA&6`bH1z
Cancel-Lock: sha1:rPKY1o1XGUnvchWMHyGVnZMlmsw=
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
Mail-Copies-To: nobody
Print Article
Forward Article
In message<4e10b631-c022-4212-af7c-32a9c8ff1153@googlegroups.com> Ed Stasiak<estasiak@att.net>
wrote:
>> Lewis
>> > Ed Stasiak
>> >
>> > Not at all, it’s called the 1st Amendment. 
>>
>> No it is not. 

> 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. 

-- 
I've always had a flair for stage directions. 

	
From: Ed Stasiak <estasiak@att.net>
Subject: Re: Rotten Tomatoes Under Fire For "Justice League" Review
Full headers:
X-Received: by 10.36.36.197 with SMTP id f188mr4424169ita.37.1512423050447;
Mon, 04 Dec 2017 13:30:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.157.85.67 with SMTP id h3mr710549oti.10.1512423050339; Mon,
04 Dec 2017 13:30:50 -0800 (PST)
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!news.unit0.net!peer01.am4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!i6no3034420itb.0!news-out.google.com!b73ni1200ita.0!nntp.google.com!i6no3034418itb.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.current-films
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 13:30:50 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <slrnp271jp.qub.g.kreme@snow.local>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=24.192.140.152;
posting-account=Ixrd5gkAAABsU4dRz0UR13K3JpdoZL-Z
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.192.140.152
References: <ova1d5$8gq$1@gioia.aioe.org> <49bcf90d-4834-43d5-a261-15ea8f06607d@googlegroups.com>
<slrnp1r7li.1mdf.g.kreme@jaka.lan> <4e10b631-c022-4212-af7c-32a9c8ff1153@googlegroups.com>
<slrnp271jp.qub.g.kreme@snow.local>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <bbb19175-1092-400f-92fa-af866430182e@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Rotten Tomatoes Under Fire For "Justice League" Review
From: Ed Stasiak <estasiak@att.net>
Injection-Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2017 21:30:50 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 17
X-Received-Body-CRC: 1573263850
X-Received-Bytes: 2263
Print Article
Forward Article

> 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. 

	
From: Obveeus <Obveeus@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Rotten Tomatoes Under Fire For "Justice League" Review
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin2!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Obveeus <Obveeus@aol.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.current-films
Subject: Re: Rotten Tomatoes Under Fire For "Justice League" Review
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 17:05:18 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <p04gqt$j9$1@dont-email.me>
References: <ova1d5$8gq$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<49bcf90d-4834-43d5-a261-15ea8f06607d@googlegroups.com>
<slrnp1r7li.1mdf.g.kreme@jaka.lan>
<4e10b631-c022-4212-af7c-32a9c8ff1153@googlegroups.com>
<slrnp271jp.qub.g.kreme@snow.local>
<bbb19175-1092-400f-92fa-af866430182e@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 22:05:17 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="3767d4efd8b777f0c32d1b94608538a6";
logging-data="617"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+BwYDfoFURVcYfcuGHwhV1"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/52.5.0
In-Reply-To: <bbb19175-1092-400f-92fa-af866430182e@googlegroups.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Cancel-Lock: sha1:WN9Vue+Skhq9pEc4gTEWx2JY+kA=
Print Article
Forward Article
On 12/4/2017 4:30 PM, 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 a First Amendment issue.   The studio is not preventing 
reviewers from saying whatever they want about the film, they are simply 
not giving reviewers pre-release access to their property. 

	
Subject: Re: Rotten Tomatoes Under Fire For "Justice League" Review
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin2!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!kreme.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.current-films
Subject: Re: Rotten Tomatoes Under Fire For "Justice League" Review
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 03:17:22 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: Miskatonic U
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <slrnp2c3u2.1rmd.g.kreme@snow.local>
References: <ova1d5$8gq$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<49bcf90d-4834-43d5-a261-15ea8f06607d@googlegroups.com>
<slrnp1r7li.1mdf.g.kreme@jaka.lan>
<4e10b631-c022-4212-af7c-32a9c8ff1153@googlegroups.com>
<slrnp271jp.qub.g.kreme@snow.local>
<bbb19175-1092-400f-92fa-af866430182e@googlegroups.com>
<p04gqt$j9$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 03:17:22 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: kreme.eternal-september.org; posting-host="66db068922e5a18c3fb3c7a6ec599288";
logging-data="7055"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18Mgg0wnTRY2Fip3+A0WY1+"
User-Agent: slrn/1.0.2 (Darwin)
X-Face: )^b5"R:T7U>9~:PEn3YkzMfW*[b1qKeU.fP9C8~8HpU9}lA&6`bH1z
Cancel-Lock: sha1:duunemWTeJ7cFs3vD/LNK0sGnPU=
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
Mail-Copies-To: nobody
Print Article
Forward Article
In message <p04gqt$j9$1@dont-email.me> Obveeus<Obveeus@aol.com> wrote:


> On 12/4/2017 4:30 PM, 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 a First Amendment issue.   The studio is not preventing 
> reviewers from saying whatever they want about the film,

Which would *also* not be a First Amendment issue.

-- 
Yes, I do happen to believe that love is mainly about pushing chocolate
covered candies and, y'know, in some cultures, a chicken. You can call
me a sucker, I don't care, because I do believe in it. Bottom line: it's
couples who are truly right for each other that wade through the same
crap as everybody else, but the big difference is they don't let it take
them down. One of those two people will stand up and fight for that
relationship every time. If it's right, and they're real lucky, one of
them will say something. 

	
From: Obveeus <Obveeus@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Rotten Tomatoes Under Fire For "Justice League" Review
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin2!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Obveeus <Obveeus@aol.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.current-films
Subject: Re: Rotten Tomatoes Under Fire For "Justice League" Review
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 23:40:19 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <p057vi$uje$2@dont-email.me>
References: <ova1d5$8gq$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<49bcf90d-4834-43d5-a261-15ea8f06607d@googlegroups.com>
<slrnp1r7li.1mdf.g.kreme@jaka.lan>
<4e10b631-c022-4212-af7c-32a9c8ff1153@googlegroups.com>
<slrnp271jp.qub.g.kreme@snow.local>
<bbb19175-1092-400f-92fa-af866430182e@googlegroups.com>
<p04gqt$j9$1@dont-email.me> <slrnp2c3u2.1rmd.g.kreme@snow.local>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 04:40:18 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="588c37d433dd274b55f53156e09a7dbc";
logging-data="31342"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19F6TCzNi+nPgFGhU0tBx+f"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/52.5.0
In-Reply-To: <slrnp2c3u2.1rmd.g.kreme@snow.local>
Content-Language: en-US
Cancel-Lock: sha1:o/Zra7wRbBQkSHtqhS9C0Nxcq+8=
Print Article
Forward Article
On 12/4/2017 10:17 PM, Lewis wrote:
> In message <p04gqt$j9$1@dont-email.me> Obveeus<Obveeus@aol.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 12/4/2017 4:30 PM, 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 a First Amendment issue.   The studio is not preventing
>> reviewers from saying whatever they want about the film,
> 
> Which would *also* not be a First Amendment issue.

I didn't say it would. 

	
From: Ed Stasiak <estasiak@att.net>
Subject: Re: Rotten Tomatoes Under Fire For "Justice League" Review
Full headers:
X-Received: by 10.36.148.132 with SMTP id j126mr7982437ite.27.1512536404802;
Tue, 05 Dec 2017 21:00:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.157.42.99 with SMTP id t90mr913629ota.5.1512536404687; Tue,
05 Dec 2017 21:00:04 -0800 (PST)
Path: news.netfront.net!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!i6no4040611itb.0!news-out.google.com!b73ni2559ita.0!nntp.google.com!i6no4040607itb.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.current-films
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 21:00:04 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <p04gqt$j9$1@dont-email.me>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=24.192.140.152;
posting-account=Ixrd5gkAAABsU4dRz0UR13K3JpdoZL-Z
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.192.140.152
References: <ova1d5$8gq$1@gioia.aioe.org> <49bcf90d-4834-43d5-a261-15ea8f06607d@googlegroups.com>
<slrnp1r7li.1mdf.g.kreme@jaka.lan> <4e10b631-c022-4212-af7c-32a9c8ff1153@googlegroups.com>
<slrnp271jp.qub.g.kreme@snow.local> <bbb19175-1092-400f-92fa-af866430182e@googlegroups.com>
<p04gqt$j9$1@dont-email.me>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <c37bf1d5-f291-4c01-8049-8b99f35bb962@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Rotten Tomatoes Under Fire For "Justice League" Review
From: Ed Stasiak <estasiak@att.net>
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. 

	
From: Obveeus <Obveeus@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Rotten Tomatoes Under Fire For "Justice League" Review
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Obveeus <Obveeus@aol.com>
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$1@dont-email.me>
References: <ova1d5$8gq$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<49bcf90d-4834-43d5-a261-15ea8f06607d@googlegroups.com>
<slrnp1r7li.1mdf.g.kreme@jaka.lan>
<4e10b631-c022-4212-af7c-32a9c8ff1153@googlegroups.com>
<slrnp271jp.qub.g.kreme@snow.local>
<bbb19175-1092-400f-92fa-af866430182e@googlegroups.com>
<p04gqt$j9$1@dont-email.me>
<c37bf1d5-f291-4c01-8049-8b99f35bb962@googlegroups.com>
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: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="81a6c8d6c712d39952bb9f659fe67fc6";
logging-data="26497"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19p3KN8Z1zPwSVispFiF0OM"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/52.5.0
In-Reply-To: <c37bf1d5-f291-4c01-8049-8b99f35bb962@googlegroups.com>
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.

Exactly. 

	
Subject: Re: Rotten Tomatoes Under Fire For "Justice League" Review
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!kreme.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.current-films
Subject: Re: Rotten Tomatoes Under Fire For "Justice League" Review
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 03:16:44 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: Miskatonic U
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <slrnp2c3ss.1rmd.g.kreme@snow.local>
References: <ova1d5$8gq$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<49bcf90d-4834-43d5-a261-15ea8f06607d@googlegroups.com>
<slrnp1r7li.1mdf.g.kreme@jaka.lan>
<4e10b631-c022-4212-af7c-32a9c8ff1153@googlegroups.com>
<slrnp271jp.qub.g.kreme@snow.local>
<bbb19175-1092-400f-92fa-af866430182e@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 03:16:44 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: kreme.eternal-september.org; posting-host="66db068922e5a18c3fb3c7a6ec599288";
logging-data="7055"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/W8UtXQosbnt1FJpmMyE2j"
User-Agent: slrn/1.0.2 (Darwin)
X-Face: )^b5"R:T7U>9~:PEn3YkzMfW*[b1qKeU.fP9C8~8HpU9}lA&6`bH1z
Cancel-Lock: sha1:hdMkpD+s9CW3qHU5M7NjFMNenRs=
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
Mail-Copies-To: nobody
Print Article
Forward Article
In message<bbb19175-1092-400f-92fa-af866430182e@googlegroups.com> Ed Stasiak<estasiak@att.net>
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. Perhaps you should *read* the
First Amendment.

-- 
It's better to burn out than it is to rust -- Neil Young as quoted be
Kurt Cobain 

	
From: BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid>
Subject: Re: Rotten Tomatoes Under Fire For "Justice League" Review
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin3!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!peer01.am4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2017 14:22:45 -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$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<49bcf90d-4834-43d5-a261-15ea8f06607d@googlegroups.com>
<slrnp1r7li.1mdf.g.kreme@jaka.lan>
<4e10b631-c022-4212-af7c-32a9c8ff1153@googlegroups.com>
<slrnp271jp.qub.g.kreme@snow.local>
<bbb19175-1092-400f-92fa-af866430182e@googlegroups.com>
<slrnp2c3ss.1rmd.g.kreme@snow.local>
Message-ID: <nM2dnTat-sOInbrHnZ2dnUU7-bnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2017 14:22:45 -0600
Lines: 27
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-x053jSgmg/UeJBccx0EQoO33Nkf/gohAQVoTxK/7u31DuvMN84/FhC3T0XiBRvAYS6LjoqJ/I3bstnl!U+iHdtpUz7jumAjxtJXItvjboRk0rcZNgu65OR93P0JKKC2YjZEOXLZEsqxNuFEdGlhr23QDl2Ef
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
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: 2760
X-Received-Body-CRC: 390916093
X-Received-Bytes: 2971
Print Article
Forward Article
Lewis<g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> In message<bbb19175-1092-400f-92fa-af866430182e@googlegroups.com> Ed
> Stasiak<estasiak@att.net> 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. 

	
From: Obveeus <Obveeus@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Rotten Tomatoes Under Fire For "Justice League" Review
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin1!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!aioe.org!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Obveeus <Obveeus@aol.com>
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$1@dont-email.me>
References: <ova1d5$8gq$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<49bcf90d-4834-43d5-a261-15ea8f06607d@googlegroups.com>
<slrnp1r7li.1mdf.g.kreme@jaka.lan>
<4e10b631-c022-4212-af7c-32a9c8ff1153@googlegroups.com>
<slrnp271jp.qub.g.kreme@snow.local>
<bbb19175-1092-400f-92fa-af866430182e@googlegroups.com>
<slrnp2c3ss.1rmd.g.kreme@snow.local>
<nM2dnTat-sOInbrHnZ2dnUU7-bnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
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: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="588c37d433dd274b55f53156e09a7dbc";
logging-data="17167"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/KHMJXYoajMZxhpstQoA2v"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/52.5.0
In-Reply-To: <nM2dnTat-sOInbrHnZ2dnUU7-bnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Cancel-Lock: sha1:XssfZMPhV91d+nIK95Un19kXcyI=
Print Article
Forward Article
On 12/5/2017 3:22 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> Lewis<g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>> In message<bbb19175-1092-400f-92fa-af866430182e@googlegroups.com> Ed
>> Stasiak<estasiak@att.net> 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. 

	
From: BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid>
Subject: Re: Rotten Tomatoes Under Fire For "Justice League" Review
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin3!goblin.stu.neva.ru!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
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$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<49bcf90d-4834-43d5-a261-15ea8f06607d@googlegroups.com>
<slrnp1r7li.1mdf.g.kreme@jaka.lan>
<4e10b631-c022-4212-af7c-32a9c8ff1153@googlegroups.com>
<slrnp271jp.qub.g.kreme@snow.local>
<bbb19175-1092-400f-92fa-af866430182e@googlegroups.com>
<slrnp2c3ss.1rmd.g.kreme@snow.local>
<nM2dnTat-sOInbrHnZ2dnUU7-bnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<p06vde$gof$1@dont-email.me>
Message-ID: <Wb-dnTFxTb20vrrHnZ2dnUU7-U3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2017 16:52:25 -0600
Lines: 41
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-ND8kXOt+Isuuqm39r1FBaDRVnOl80i5PGqmDJGu1rrGBuSvVbLk1AlLwV00VEuL+vrlVSaSd3/N7OV0!St4UakOXDcyegjaj0jhDv3XC18PNjolV2WzxV+bk4xP56sNS5mpHFxFEYPLGg+zz02T4LRSAQNuw
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
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<Obveeus@aol.com> wrote:
> 
> On 12/5/2017 3:22 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

>> Lewis<g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

>>> In message<bbb19175-1092-400f-92fa-af866430182e@googlegroups.com> Ed
>>> Stasiak<estasiak@att.net> 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
all. 

	
Next <
From: trotsky <gmsingh@email.com>
Subject: Re: Rotten Tomatoes Under Fire For "Justice League" Review
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!peer01.am4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!post01.iad!fx17.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
Subject: Re: Rotten Tomatoes Under Fire For "Justice League" Review
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.current-films
References: <ova1d5$8gq$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<49bcf90d-4834-43d5-a261-15ea8f06607d@googlegroups.com>
<slrnp1r7li.1mdf.g.kreme@jaka.lan>
<4e10b631-c022-4212-af7c-32a9c8ff1153@googlegroups.com>
<slrnp271jp.qub.g.kreme@snow.local>
<bbb19175-1092-400f-92fa-af866430182e@googlegroups.com>
<slrnp2c3ss.1rmd.g.kreme@snow.local>
<nM2dnTat-sOInbrHnZ2dnUU7-bnNnZ2d@giganews.com> <p06vde$gof$1@dont-email.me>
<Wb-dnTFxTb20vrrHnZ2dnUU7-U3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: trotsky <gmsingh@email.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/52.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <Wb-dnTFxTb20vrrHnZ2dnUU7-U3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 171210-2, 12/10/2017), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Lines: 48
Message-ID: <uBbXB.10437$KW7.3933@fx17.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 14:34:02 UTC
Organization: http://www.NewsDemon.com
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 08:34:05 -0600
X-Received-Body-CRC: 2960114507
X-Received-Bytes: 3391
Print Article
Forward Article
On 12/5/2017 4:52 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> Obveeus<Obveeus@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 12/5/2017 3:22 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> 
>>> Lewis<g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> 
>>>> In message<bbb19175-1092-400f-92fa-af866430182e@googlegroups.com> Ed
>>>> Stasiak<estasiak@att.net> 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.


Which is what happened.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus