Especially when a movie is utterly demolished. I'm thinking one could argue that harsh criticism refrains people from going to see a movie, which one might suspect was the case whith "The Majestic", grossing only $ 27 million domestically.
Of course, problems arises if a movie actually IS crap... But according to whom? I know people who loves *beep* movies just because they ARE *beep*
Halleliejah!
Critics' comments are considered First Amendment-protected Free Speech because it's part of their job description.
Your replies will be graded and possibly used as material in future projects.
No, it's not free speech for movies critics just because "it's part of their job description." Everyone, not just the press, enjoys the freedom of speech to express their opinions on movies (and everything else). That's why you can have thousands of IMDB members freely giving their opinions on this website, in fact.
shareThe First Amendment only covers government interference with free speech. If a film maker wanted to sue a critic, it would be based on slander or defamation.
shareno one expect sheeple to act any differently.
i mostly will not be able to answer your reply, since marissa mayer hacked my email, no notification
They should also sue moviegoers that pay to see other movies instead of their own. Studios need critics because they can make their film just as must as they can break it.
shareSue them for what? Not liking a movie? Or saying they don't like a movie? Should I be able to sue a guy because he says he doesn't like the way I do my job? Or sue a woman because she doesn't think I'm handsome?
It's ridiculous. A society would cease to be free if anyone could sue anyone else for expressing opposing viewpoints. The deterrent effect of potential lawsuits would force people to be quiet and keep their own thoughts to themselves.