Duke Pornstar Comes Out, Gets Suspended from Twitter

Belle Knox comes out as Duke pornstar

On Valentine’s Day, the Duke Chronicle ran a piece about a Duke freshman who spent her breaks in Los Angeles shooting porn. The student, who was given the pseudonym “Lauren” by the Chronicle, told reporter Katie Fernelius that the idea to go into the adult industry first came to her while grappling with the question of paying for her education.

The Project on Student Debt by the Institute for College Access and Success estimates that borrowing students will graduate with $29,400 of debt, with one in ten going over $40,000 into the red. Of course, it’s important to remember that these and other similar attempts to get an overview of the student loan crisis are incomplete, as schools are not legally required to report debt levels for their graduates. These data are collected using different methodologies, and provided to third parties voluntarily.

“The limitations of relying on voluntarily reported data underscore the need for federal collection of student debt data for all schools,” reads the 2013 student debt report. “Even for colleges that do report voluntarily, the debt figures in the report may understate actual borrowing because they do not include transfer students or any private loans the college was unaware of.”

It’s estimated that some 20 percent of student loans are private. These private loans are more costly and provide fewer consumer protections (you can default after missing a single payment) and repayment options than safer federal loans, which have fixed interest rates, are subject to income-based payback, and take nine months to default on. “Lauren” was ineligible for financial aid or a federal loan at Duke, and thrown by the 11 percent interest of the private loan offered to her to continue her education. For comparison, the interest for federal loans was reduced to 3.8 in July of last year, from a hike to 6.8 percent.

Aware that unemployment for recent graduates was still high following the financial crisis, and that 18.3 percent of young college graduates were either working fewer hours than they wanted, were out looking for work, or had completely given up looking for work, “Lauren” e-mailed adult agencies about working in Porn Valley. When Matrix Models got back to her, “Lauren” took a look at the numbers and made her choice. It wouldn’t be the first time she’d taken a gig for her bottom line. In high-school, she’d been a waitress — one of those so-called “real” jobs that people like to believe have more dignity than anything that involves showing some skin, even when the wages are dismal, the hours are brutal and the tips are slim.

But what “Lauren” found when she arrived on her first porn set surprised her — and it’s this part of the story that seems to confuse the world. “Lauren” soon found that she enjoyed working in the porn industry. It took her one shoot to confront insecurities about her body. It blew her mind how much her work depended on her being honest with herself about her personal boundaries, and communicating these explicitly. These two things alone were not things she’d had occasion to consider, much less embrace, in the sexually hostile climate of many of our nation’s academic institutions.

Exploring sex work was not inconsistent with her focus on women’s studies. She told the Chronicle, “Feminism to me means advancing my personal liberty, my opportunity in the world, while also championing my body and my right to choose what to do with my body. For people who say that porn is inherently degrading, that’s wrong. First of all, everything we do is consensual. We are not coerced in any way. Second of all, you’re right, all the directors are male, there may be two female directors in the entire world that are porn directors. If anything, that means I need to go in there and I need to change it.”

After she was outed at Duke, “Lauren” would go on to write two pieces for the site xojane expounding on her views as a porn-positive feminist. Her outing was almost instantaneous: she confided in a student who turned around and let the cat out of the bag at rush that same evening. The news hit the school’s electronic grapevine shortly. One of the more popular college message board sites has over 78 posts about her, over 15 of which reveal personally-identifiable information about her or her family. Some 18 of these posts are defamatory or harassing: “Lauren” has been accused of lying about needing tuition money to cover up a cocaine or heroin habit, being bulimic, engaging in cutting and self-injury, and being responsible for rape culture at Duke. Some posters have called for her to overdose, kill herself or die in some fashion, and “Lauren” herself has recounted numerous threats made against her person and her life.

The allegation that she was encouraging rape was the worst. A writer at the Huffington Post berated her, saying “Women did not burn their bras to take them off.” That piece brought up how anti-porn feminists helped Linda Lovelace. It made no mention of the vitriol faced by adult performers who stand by their choices and don’t believe they’re being victimized.

“Of course, I do fully acknowledge that some women don’t have such a positive experience in the industry,” wrote “Lauren” at xojane a week after her interview for the Chronicle went live. “We need to listen to these women. And to do that we need to remove the stigma attached to their profession and treat it as a legitimate career that needs regulation and oversight. We need to give a voice to the women that are exploited and abused in the industry. Shaming and hurling names at them, the usual treatment we give sex workers, is not the way to achieve this.”

Today, “Lauren” came out under her adult industry name, Belle Knox, on another passionate piece on xojane.

“I may never have a normal life again,” Knox admits. “But if I’ve exposed the insanity and the unfair standards that all women and especially my sisters in the sex industry face — if I’ve challenged the way that people view female sexuality — then this journey has been worth it. Society tries to tell women that our worth is contingent upon the secrecy of our sexuality, but I will not be silenced. […] I stand for every woman who has ever been tormented for being sexual — for every woman who has been harassed, ostracized and called a slut for exerting her sexual autonomy — and for every woman who has been the victim of The Double Standard. You want to see me naked. And then you want to judge me for letting you see me naked.”

A couple of hours after the post went up on xojane, Knox’s account on Twitter had gained over one thousand followers. Then, for reasons that remain unclear, the account was suspended. It remains suspended as of the writing of this post, despite several requests made to Twitter by me, Mandy Stadtmiller and other users to consider reinstating it. Retweet this to let Twitter know suspension is a mistake.

Knox’s Tumblr remains live, however, and she has created a Facebook page. Like her page to let her know sex workers have allies in this overwhelmingly sex-negative world.

Header image is a still from a CastingCouch-X.com scene with Belle Knox.

  • Grant Stone

    This is a great piece! Well written. Well thought out. A couple of points:

    You quote Belle as saying, “all the directors are male, there may be two female directors in the entire world that are porn directors. If anything, that means I need to go in there and I need to change it.” Now, that may be her perception. But on facebook you commented:

    “I keep hearing that there are no women in the production, direction, or writing side of things. That’s crazy to me. Off the top of my head, women who own production companies, direct, write, or a combination of these: Nina Hartley, Madison Young,Scarlett Revell, Candida Royalle, Jacky St. James, Joanna Angel, Petra Joy, Erika Lust, Nica Noelle, Shine Louise Houston, Tristan Taormino, Dana Dane, jessica drake, Jenna Jameson, Tera Patrick…

    I feel like “there are no women directing/producing/writing porn” is a line sold by people who need porn to appear as a wicked fief where women are just workers, toiling over land they don’t own with no hope of moving up, while their lords and owners of the land are always men.”

    If you let Belle’s observation that “all the directors are male” go unchallenged and uncorrected in your piece, you create the image that porn is a “wicked fief where women are just workers.” Yes?

    I like Belle Knox. I think she is smart and articulate. I think she is lovely. So far, her beauty appears unmarred by plastic surgery. Her unique ethnicity gives her both a mysterious quality, and a very approachable, innocent, girl-next-door charm. She looks both unattainable and accessible at the same time. That’s pretty magical.

    Belle Knox’s history of engaging in cutting and self mutilation is disturbing. Especially because this was used by her “costars” in a scene she did for facialabuse.com. I found that scene particularly horrific, because they used Belle Knox’s cutting and her insecurities about her weight to pointedly degrade and humiliate her. Then, the scene involved choking her, beating her, spitting on her and further verbally and sexually abusing her. I’ve only seen the trailer. (I have no desire to see more.) But the scene seemed like a Misogynist Fantasy on steroids. It is scary, not sexy. Porn Horror. That sort of porn glorifies and normalizes dangerous, abusive behavior. It makes Belle Knox’s claims of feeling “empowered” by porn, or her claim that she is out to be a “Sex Positive Feminist” seem like hypocritical blather. There was nothing “Feminist” or “Positive” about that scene. Because either Belle Knox is the best actress ever, or the look of fear and humiliation in her eyes is real as she is getting abused in that scene.

    I’m not saying that Belle Knox doesn’t have a right to make porn, even tasteless misogynist porn. But we should be able to call out the tasteless misogynist porn for what it is when we come across it. And not hide behind feminist double-speak, claiming something is empowering when it is clearly nauseating BS. That scene is gross and a mistake. And it makes Belle Knox look like a hypocritical liar.

    We can all like Ben Affleck as an actor, but still call out “Gigli” as a mistake.

    I also find Belle Knox’s history of cutting disturbing because it shows a level of self-hatred and self-abuse that could easily lead to her abusing her body with plastic surgery. I’m not saying that women don’t have a right to modify their bodies however they choose. I am saying that the amount of plastic surgery in Hollywood and the porn industry is staggering and often tasteless. And the results are often comic, unnatural, alien and sometimes very sad. I think Belle Knox is has a charming and unique look, and what I see as assets to her beauty could be easily thrown away if someone convinces her to inflate her breasts, or change the shape of her nose or eyes. And her cutting seems to indicate a level of self-doubt and a desire to control that in extreme ways.

    If porn gives Belle Knox a feeling of personal empowerment and a confidence in her looks and her body, so that she feels no desire for cutting or self abuse, then God bless the porn industry. If the porn industry takes an emotionally vulnerable, innocent young woman and distorts her into a cynical, plasticized, misogynist-empowering fem-bot for the patriarchy…ick.

    BTW, you’ve made a fan. I will seek out your other articles on Slantist.

    • A.V. Flox

      Though I disagree with Knox that there are no female directors in porn, it must be remembered the context in which she made these statements — in response to those who seek to characterize her as a victim of the male-dominated porn industry when, in fact, if she is a victim, she’s only a victim of harassment by people outside of the industry.

      Knox, like most people, are repeatedly told that sex work is inherently abusive. One of the favorite “facts” paraded is that there are no women making porn. This is not true, and I have confidence that she will discover that herself, if she hasn’t already. However, her response that working toward better standards for women in the industry depends on more women getting involved in the creation of pornography is valid. I hope she does get involved.

      The continuous highlighting of her self-injury is troublesome here because it is clearly being used to deny her agency. She cut herself, people point out, therefore, she is not fit to make decisions for herself. These “concerns” allow the shift of blame from an industry to a person speaking up that her experience hasn’t been negative in said industry as a way to dismiss her opinion. Ah, people tell themselves, she thinks porn is okay to do because she’s broken.

      But consider this: do we ever tell bloggers, bartenders, personal trainers, actors, attorneys that they cut themselves and therefore can’t be trusted to have made an informed decision about their lives? Are all people who ever engaged in self-injury incapable, forevermore, of making a choice that isn’t somehow suspect? This is not only ridiculous but inappropriate. It betrays the belief that sex work is somehow different than other forms of work, that no one not broken engage in it. This isn’t true.

      There’s always a way to silence the sex worker. Most recently we saw this on “All In” when a member of the “rescue” industry told the nation that no one was “qualified” to speak about sex work as work until they’d had sex with 20 men in one day. That leaves who, exactly?

      Keeping the sex worker silent helps only those who profit from the “plight” of sex workers. If these individuals were concerned with the issues that most often result in sex work, they’d fight a war on poverty and other systemic vulnerabilities instead of fighting to deter it through police intervention. But that’s not headline-making. There’s a reason that “victim” stories are so popular — they’re the porn of the self-appointed righteous who can’t watch the fantasy illustrated by offerings such as those on FacialAbuse, but nevertheless crave that form of narrative, provided it’s made palatable by the hope of eventual redemption.

      This pervasive need to silence the sex worker is precisely why I let Knox speak for herself without editorializing. Her experience, along with her ideas, are more important than mine, or those of anyone not actively involved in sex work and therefore aware of the issues facing sex workers now.

      Your concerns about her body are disturbing in that you seem to believe she owes you anything, that you have any right to demand that she present herself in the manner you have determined is preferable to you. She doesn’t belong to you any more than an actor in a show you like watching belongs to you, which is to say not at all. It’s her choice what she does, what she eats, whether she does yoga or pilates or nothing at all, or has her teeth whitened or her breasts modified. The notion that you or I or anyone knows better is another flagrant denial of her agency.

      Knox says that the conditions she’s experienced while in the porn industry are better than those in other service positions that she has been involved in. This is her experience. It’s a valid data point. It is not the only data point, but until we allow sex workers to tell their stories without simultaneously having to fear for their safety — even if retaliation is only in the form of emotionally corrosive concern trolling — we’re not going to get enough data points to have useful conversations about improving the situation of other workers (not just women) in the industry.

      That Knox chooses to use feminist ideology to voice her views is also her choice — if that sounds irreconcilable to many, it’s not because Knox is hiding behind it, but rather because a vocal feminist contingent has, for too long, ignored the experience of sex workers.

    • avflox

      Though I disagree with Knox that there are no female directors in porn, it must be remembered the context in which she made these statements — in response to those who seek to characterize her as a victim of the male-dominated porn industry when, in fact, if she is a victim, she’s only a victim of harassment by people outside of the industry.

      Knox, like most people, are repeatedly told that sex work is inherently abusive. One of the favorite “facts” paraded is that there are no women making porn. This is not true, and I have confidence that she will discover that herself, if she hasn’t already. However, her response that working toward better standards for women in the industry depends on more women getting involved in the creation of pornography is valid. I hope she does get involved.

      The continuous highlighting of her self-injury is troublesome here because it is clearly being used to deny her agency. She cut herself, people point out, therefore, she is not fit to make decisions for herself. These “concerns” allow the shift of blame from an industry to a person speaking up that her experience hasn’t been negative in said industry as a way to dismiss her opinion. Ah, people tell themselves, she thinks porn is okay to do because she’s broken.

      But consider this: do we ever tell bloggers, bartenders, personal trainers, actors, attorneys that they cut themselves and therefore can’t be trusted to have made an informed decision about their lives? Are all people who ever engaged in self-injury incapable, forevermore, of making a choice that isn’t somehow suspect? This is not only ridiculous but inappropriate. It betrays the belief that sex work is somehow different than other forms of work, that no one not broken engage in it. This isn’t true.

      There’s always a way to silence the sex worker. Most recently we saw this on “All In” when a member of the “rescue” industry told the nation that no one was “qualified” to speak about sex work as work until they’d had sex with 20 men in one day. That leaves who, exactly?

      Keeping the sex worker silent helps only those who profit from the “plight” of sex workers. If these individuals were concerned with the issues that most often result in sex work, they’d fight a war on poverty and other systemic vulnerabilities instead of fighting to deter it through police intervention. But that’s not headline-making. There’s a reason that “victim” stories are so popular — they’re the porn of the self-appointed righteous who can’t watch the fantasy illustrated by offerings such as those on FacialAbuse, but nevertheless crave that form of narrative, provided it’s made palatable by the hope of eventual redemption.

      This pervasive need to silence the sex worker is precisely why I let Knox speak for herself without editorializing. Her experience, along with her ideas, are more important than mine, or those of anyone not actively involved in sex work and therefore aware of the issues facing sex workers now.

      Your concerns about her body are disturbing in that you seem to believe she owes you anything, that you have any right to demand that she present herself in the manner you have determined is preferable to you. She doesn’t belong to you any more than an actor in a show you like watching belongs to you, which is to say not at all. It’s her choice what she does, what she eats, whether she does yoga or pilates or nothing at all, or has her teeth whitened or her breasts modified. The notion that you or I or anyone knows better is another flagrant denial of her agency.

      Knox says that the conditions she’s experienced while in the porn industry are better than those in other service positions that she has been involved in. This is her experience. It’s a valid data point. It is not the only data point, but until we allow sex workers to tell their stories without simultaneously having to fear for their safety — even if retaliation is only in the form of emotionally corrosive concern trolling — we’re not going to get enough data points to have useful conversations about improving the situation of other workers (not just women) in the industry.

      That Knox chooses to use feminist ideology to voice her views is also her choice — if that sounds irreconcilable to many, it’s not because Knox is hiding behind it, but rather because a vocal feminist contingent has, for too long, ignored the experience of sex workers.

      • Grant Stone

        I don’t think Belle Knox owes me anything. But an actor’s body (or a Porn Star’s body) are their vehicle for communication. It is part of their profession. So they open themselves up to comment about that. Cutting is a very serious issue, and I don’t think it should be swept under the rug. I’m not making demands that Belle Knox present herself any way. But I certainly have a Right to make suggestions. I certainly have a Right to comment. I’m not denying Belle Knox’s agency! Why are you denying me MY Right to agency, MY Right to voice an opinion?

        Ben Affleck will be starring as Batman in the movies. I suggest he do a better job than he did with Daredevil. I’m not denying Ben Affleck his agency. I’m just stating an opinion.

        Let’s bring this back to Belle Knox’s opinion and HER agency, and the video of hers that I’m most offended by.

        http://www.xojane.com/sex/belle-knox-duke-porn-star-rough-sex-feminism-kink

        Belle Knox says, “The more I have read criticism of the site [she is speaking about facialabuse.com], the more I realize that if I do another rough sex scene, I will more thoroughly research the company and how they treat their performers.” In other words, she didn’t like how she was treated. And she isn’t fully endorsing the end product. I agree with her!

        She continues, “Do I regret shooting a scene with this website? Yes. Do I think I deserve to be demonized for it? Absolutely not.”

        Do I think Belle Knox should be demonized for doing a scene for facialabuse.com? No! But, can she be justly criticized for doing that scene? I think so. That scene is horrific. It’s NOT about consensual Dominance/Submission. It’s not about KINK. It’s about violent misogyny! It promotes and normalizes violence against women! That’s sick and wrong. Are you saying that sort of video is OK with you, as long as the actress gets paid for it? That violent misogyny might be just a fantasy. That might have been a consensual act by Belle Knox. But the video doesn’t portray it as a consensual act. The man in the video calls Belle Knox a liar, when she claims she likes rough sex, and then he goes about trying to PROVE that she is a liar by roughing her up…a lot. The video is portrayed like it is a violent man who is stripping a woman of her “agency”! So it’s freakin’ scary! Get it?

        Why is it OK to criticize the Objectification of Women in the Media when it comes to Advertising, but it’s not OK to criticize how women are portrayed in Porn?

        I’m not denying Belle Knox’s agency. I’m saying that what she does is important work. So it’s important that she truly consider the roles and scenes that she takes on, and their greater impact on Society. That’s not denying Belle Knox her agency, that’s recognizing Belle Knox has some power and influence (agency), and asking her to use that power wisely.

        • avflox

          Your belief that your right to agency is being denied when people don’t agree with you betrays how little you understand what I’m talking about.

          Belle Knox is right to take care to research how sites and studios she is considering working with treat their performers, but that doesn’t mean she is saying that she was not treated well. Her response is an attempt to shift the conversation from a condemnation of rough sex to one where the ethics of pornography are defined by sites’ and studios’ treatment of workers. Effectively, Knox is turning a conversation where the topic is revulsion of rough sex to one where the topic is labor issues. This is not an admission of abuse.

          Many members of the public seem to need to create a hierarchy of porn where some porn is “okay” and other porn is “not okay” based on how the performers behave in the film. This is useless for with regard to the well-being of performers that you and many “concerned” people claim to be arguing for. Porn should be viewed as a labor situation, where “ethical” is a term used to refer to the treatment of workers, not the story-line of films. We should be fighting for fair practices within the industry to ensure the well-being of performers and rights outside the industry to enable performers to lead full lives where participating in the sex industry doesn’t bar entry to other fields.

          The focus on the story-lines within has nothing to do with the well-being of a performer. The notion that the scene in which Knox participated is not consensual is an opinion that willfully ignores Knox’s own statements to the contrary and takes her words out of context. Knox may regret doing it because she is being demonized for it, but that doesn’t mean her consent was violated. If she feels her consent was violated during the filming, then that is what we should be discussing. But that’s not what you are discussing. You are discussing your belief that certain types of fantasy that portray a woman in a certain way are “misogynist” and “sick and wrong,” even if a woman willingly participates.

          This ignores the agency of a woman to determine what activity she wants to participate in.

          “Are you saying that sort of video is OK with you, as long as the actress gets paid for it?” No. I am saying that this act (whether it’s filmed or not) is okay as long as all people participating in it have consented and continue to consent throughout the act. If the consent involves that one participant receive payment, then that participant must receive payment, but payment is not necessary for this activity to be acceptable. The only thing necessary is consent.

          “That might have been a consensual act by Belle Knox. But the video doesn’t portray it as a consensual act. […] The video is portrayed like it is a violent man who is stripping a woman of her ‘agency’! So it’s freakin’ scary! Get it?” I suppose we ought to suppress mainstream films and books that show domestic violence and murder next.

          Objectification is casting a person in the role of object (an object is that which is acted upon) as opposed to one of subject (that which acts, or the agent). When you ignore what a woman is saying about her own experience — like Belle Knox saying the conditions she has experienced in the adult industry have not been abusive — and point out her past behavior with the intent to discredit her ability to make decisions that are in her own interest, you deny her agency, and effectively objectify her. Conversations about the portrayal of women in the media (including porn) that dismiss the voices of women in said media are, as a result, highly suspect to me.

          • Grant Stone

            Look, I used the “agency” wording because you had. You want to say that my opinion about Belle Knox’s work denies her agency! It doesn’t, in exactly the same way that you saying that I am wrong doesn’t deny me MY “agency”! We are just voicing opinions. My saying that Belle Knox was WRONG to do a scene with facialabuse.com is NOT denying her agency. It’s voicing an opinion about that scene.

            I agree that rough sex is NOT abuse. BDSM is NOT abuse. But that’s NOT what was portrayed in that scene. That scene portrays Misogyny Porn! I can’t describe it any other way.

            And I’m NOT arguing about Belle Knox’s well being! I’m arguing that she was WRONG! Can I tell a comedian that I think his jokes about drugging a woman’s cocktail so that he can have a better chance of raping her are degrading and NOT funny? Can I tell him that I think those types of jokes actually create a cultural climate that normalizes rape, a “Rape Culture” so to speak? I can. That’s my Right, as much as he has a Right to tell that sort of awful joke.

            The scene Belle Knox did for facialabuse.com is scary. Belle Knox survived it. I don’t think Belle Knox’s reputation was forever tainted by it. It’s not a Scarlet Letter, even if it makes her look a bit like a hypocrite, because she doesn’t appear empowered by that scene.

            But even BELLE KNOX has said that she regrets doing that scene! She has said, that if she knew then what she knows now, she would not have done that scene. I’m NOT the only one who isn’t endorsing that scene. Belle Knox is in that same boat with me! I’m NOT ignoring what Belle Knox is saying. I’ve read her pieces for XOJane, and she has SAID that she regrets doing that one scene. I don’t deny or argue with her point that overall she fells empowered by her experiences with porn. And I’m not generally disapproving of porn. If Belle Knox enjoys doing porn, more power to her!

            Belle Knox says, “Now, I view it as the one choice I would take back if I could as a porn actress. The more I have read criticism of the site, the more I realize that if I do another rough sex scene, I will more thoroughly research the company and how they treat their performers. ”

            http://www.xojane.com/sex/belle-knox-duke-porn-star-rough-sex-feminism-kink

            I think that scene normalizes sexual abuse and misogyny. I think that is tasteless and wrong. I don’t think I’m going out on a limb with that, or showing that I’m a repressive prude. Do I want to see that sort of “speech” made illegal? No. I don’t want to make rape jokes illegal either. But I do think we need to recognize tasteless CRAP for being tasteless CRAP and call it out for that, without fear that someone will accuse us of “censorship” or denying someone else their “agency.”

            Speaking of Objectification. Belle Knox has announced that Doc Johnson is making a line of sex toys from molds of her body. That is literally direct “Objectification!” She has promised the Duke Basketball Team that if they win the NCAA Tournament, she will reward them all with a “Pocket Pussy” made for her body, so they can all virtually have sex with her. http://www.tmz.com/2014/03/19/belle-knox-duke-porn-star-video/

            That’s crass. It’s funny too. But it’s also a woman directly objectifying (making objects from) her own sexuality! Do I think she has a right to do that? YES! But do you think that is tasteless? And can I both think that it’s tasteless, and sort of funny that Belle Knox is promoting her Adult Toy Line by associating it with Duke Basketball? Maybe that makes me a hypocrite.

            Look, are their hierarchies of Porn? Yes! Are there categories and genres of Porn that I like more than others? Certainly. But we do that with every art form. I like Singer/Songwriter Pop/Rock more than Hardcore Rap, House Electronica, Easy Listening or Muzak! There is nothing wrong with that. I like Impressionism more than Abstract Expressionism in Art. Down near the bottom of the Porn Hierarchy (for me) are videos that glorify hurting other people. I’m not talking about “rough sex” or BDSM or Kink. I’m talking about stuff that gets pleasure out of really degrading and injuring other people. Especially Misogyny Porn. Ick! I not only find that personally distasteful. I think it’s more than a little dangerous.

            Calling something tasteless or even culturally dangerous isn’t the same thing as “censorship.” That’s just voicing a negative opinion. And I have as much of a right to a negative opinion about a work of art as the artist has to make it! Is a movie reviewer who gives a movie a negative review guilty of censorship? No! Even if the review discourages people from seeing the movie, that’s NOT censorship. That reviewer is NOT denying the movie makers their agency. He is exercising his own.