• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Poll: Is Ron DeSantis violating the 1A rights of Disney?

Is Ron DeSantis violating the 1A rights of Disney?

  • Total voters
    66
HomerJS

HomerJS

Lifer
Disney speaks out against the new don't say gay law. DeSantis retaliates by moving to revoke their self governing privileges. He said Disney had no right to speak out against his new law.

Just a reminder, first amendment rights prohibits GOVERNMENT from infringing on free speech.
 
Pens1566 said:
Disney, as a corporation, has 1st amendment protections. I think it's pretty obvious this govt action wasn't put in motion until AFTER Disney exercised those rights in discussing their opposition to the legislation. Should be an easy dunk for even a 2L ...
Click to expand...
I mean Republican legislators are on record saying the purpose of this legislation is to punish Disney for disagreeing with the Florida government's political position. It seems like it should be a slam dunk but I'm not sure if a case like this has ever come up before because generally speaking the government doesn't act this thuggishly and in the cases when it does the people doing the thugging are usually smart enough to keep their mouths shut.

Here though the intimidation seems to be the point - to tell other businesses in the state that if they don't support the government's political positions they will be punished.
 
fskimospy said:
I mean Republican legislators are on record saying the purpose of this legislation is to punish Disney for disagreeing with the Florida government's political position. It seems like it should be a slam dunk but I'm not sure if a case like this has ever come up before because generally speaking the government doesn't act this thuggishly and in the cases when it does the people doing the thugging are usually smart enough to keep their mouths shut.

Here though the intimidation seems to be the point - to tell other businesses in the state that if they don't support the government's political positions they will be punished.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that one FL rep was on ... CNN(?) again last night doubling down on "Disney should behave" shit. Short of a "we did it because they spoke out" direct quote, I'm not sure how you can be more blatant about it.

And other business don't have the firepower to fight back that House of Mouse does. Which is EXACTLY why Disney should shit-hammer FL with both barrels in order to prevent them doing the same to mom and pops all over the place.
 
Pens1566 said:
Yeah, that one FL rep was on ... CNN(?) again last night doubling down on "Disney should behave" shit. Short of a "we did it because they spoke out" direct quote, I'm not sure how you can be more blatant about it.

And other business don't have the firepower to fight back that House of Mouse does. Which is EXACTLY why Disney should shit-hammer FL with both barrels in order to prevent them doing the same to mom and pops all over the place.
Click to expand...
I imagine Disney will bring a lot of firepower to bear on this because the idea that the government can selectively punish businesses for taking positions they disagree with has far-reaching implications that go way, way beyond this.
 
fskimospy said:
I mean Republican legislators are on record saying the purpose of this legislation is to punish Disney for disagreeing with the Florida government's political position. It seems like it should be a slam dunk but I'm not sure if a case like this has ever come up before because generally speaking the government doesn't act this thuggishly and in the cases when it does the people doing the thugging are usually smart enough to keep their mouths shut.

Here though the intimidation seems to be the point - to tell other businesses in the state that if they don't support the government's political positions they will be punished.
Click to expand...
Intimidation and I think he knows it would be likely struck down in court as a 1A violation.

Even if that happened, it's a plus in a 2024 GOP primary for POTUS, which is what he wants.

Disney should get together with any business they can and vow to support DeSantis's opponent for his re-election for Governor. That would kill his POTUS aspirations.
 
Last edited:
fskimospy said:
I imagine Disney will bring a lot of firepower to bear on this because the idea that the government can selectively punish businesses for taking positions they disagree with has far-reaching implications that go way, way beyond this.
Click to expand...

They absolutely should. But I'm fearful they won't. Disney gets to wipe $2B debt off their books, doesn't piss off ~40% of their customer base, and doesn't suffer any further negative impacts to their multi billion dollar central FL empire. Might just be the cynic in me, but I could see them going that route as well.
 
Pens1566 said:
They absolutely should. But I'm fearful they won't. Disney gets to wipe $2B debt off their books, doesn't piss off ~40% of their customer base, and doesn't suffer any further negative impacts to their multi billion dollar central FL empire. Might just be the cynic in me, but I could see them going that route as well.
Click to expand...
That's a good point, it's kind of a huge giveaway to them. Then again presumably Disney likes this state of affairs where it controls those things. I guess we'll see!
 
HomerJS said:
Intimidation and I think he knows it would be likely struck down in court as a 1A violation.

Even if that happened good it's a plus in a 2024 GOP primary for POTUS, which is what he wants.

Disney should get together with any business they can and vow to support DeSantis's opponent for his re-election for Governor. That would kill his POTUS aspirations.
Click to expand...
I don't think it would kill his aspirations at all and if anything he would probably welcome the higher profile that would give him.
 
On one hand I don’t beeline in constitutional rights for corporations. On the other hand, as currently ruled by the Supreme Court, corporations are people and are entitled to constitutional rights. Seeing as how Disney exercise is first amendment rights and desantis is clearly looking to punish them for it, it certainly seems like the most clear cut violation of the first amendment.


Honestly, I’m surprised it’s taken this long to figure out.
 
ivwshane said:
On one hand I don’t beeline in constitutional rights for corporations. On the other hand, as currently ruled by the Supreme Court, corporations are people and are entitled to constitutional rights. Seeing as how Disney exercise is first amendment rights and desantis is clearly looking to punish them for it, it certainly seems like the most clear cut violation of the first amendment.


Honestly, I’m surprised it’s taken this long to figure out.
Click to expand...

Same.

And I fully expect, should Disney fight on 1A grounds, that team Desantis will use some form of argument that they don't have actual 1A rights. Complete hypocrisy ...
 
Pens1566 said:
They absolutely should. But I'm fearful they won't. Disney gets to wipe $2B debt off their books, doesn't piss off ~40% of their customer base, and doesn't suffer any further negative impacts to their multi billion dollar central FL empire. Might just be the cynic in me, but I could see them going that route as well.
Click to expand...
There is no guarantee that Disney will get to wipe the $2B debt. I think Florida will try to pass some law requiring the "residents" of Reedy Creek aka Disney to assume ownership of the debt. Also there are some definitely downside of losing Reedy Creek like the following: paying property taxes(which could quickly exceed the 2B depending on what rate they negotiate with local government), following local building codes and labor laws, getting building permits, etc.
 
Pens1566 said:
Same.

And I fully expect, should Disney fight on 1A grounds, that team Desantis will use some form of argument that they don't have actual 1A rights. Complete hypocrisy ...
Click to expand...
I think they will argue the law is facially neutral and should be upheld, and they are correct that the law is facially neutral.

The main question will end up being if the courts decide that because the people making the law clearly and repeatedly said it was to attack disfavored speech that violates the 1st amendment or if they pretend not to notice that happened like with the Muslim ban.
 
This is a fascinating topic.

I think the trouble you will run into, is that people expect free speech to exist across public internet platforms.
With their speech having been violated, scorned, and silenced, they are looking for vengeance against those who are their "other". They want to strike back and this is exactly it.

Pens1566 said:
Disney, as a corporation, has 1st amendment protections.
Click to expand...

Corporations having both protection and control over is a curious position for them to hold, for anyone concerned that our nation has gone to / is run by Corporations. To anyone who wonders if our politicians are too beholden to them, their lobbyists, and their donations. Those who write politician's checks are free to speak, and free to silence people. Of course we cheer when Corporations silence the correct people. And in this topic we grow angry when the people, through their government, strike back.

Is it the place of the Government to be used in this way?
Disney certainly has a strong case and I would not begrudge any who judge in their favor.

As for myself, I would like to hear what a Court has to say on the matter. It is too technical a matter, whether a legislature revoking a special status is illegal based on motive. It begs the question of what the underlying principles are and I cannot claim that I know them. Can the legislature wait one year, or another term holding office? Can they do it after the next election? Surely it is not beyond their power to perform this action, it is merely their motive in question. How long does their motive hold more importance and block their desired action, than their right to perform this action in the first place? I do not know how it all breaks down in a legal sense.

And while I favor free speech, I am also seeing what happens as a result of our speech being misused. One might argue American Corporations have entered that fight and are doing good work on our behalf. But then, why should they get to dictate? And if not them... who?

There are serious and unresolved issues over modern speech.
 
Jaskalas said:
This is a fascinating topic.

I think the trouble you will run into, is that people expect free speech to exist across public internet platforms.
With their speech having been violated, scorned, and silenced, they are looking for vengeance against those who are their "other". They want to strike back and this is exactly it.



Corporations having both protection and control over is a curious position for them to hold, for anyone concerned that our nation has gone to / is run by Corporations. To anyone who wonders if our politicians are too beholden to them, their lobbyists, and their donations. Those who write politician's checks are free to speak, and free to silence people. Of course we cheer when Corporations silence the correct people. And in this topic we grow angry when the people, through their government, strike back.

Is it the place of the Government to be used in this way?
Disney certainly has a strong case and I would not begrudge any who judge in their favor.

As for myself, I would like to hear what a Court has to say on the matter. It is too technical a matter, whether a legislature revoking a special status is illegal based on motive. It begs the question of what the underlying principles are and I cannot claim that I know them. Can the legislature wait one year, or another term holding office? Can they do it after the next election? Surely it is not beyond their power to perform this action, it is merely their motive in question. How long does their motive hold more importance and block their desired action, than their right to perform this action in the first place? I do not know how it all breaks down in a legal sense.

And while I favor free speech, I am also seeing what happens as a result of our speech being misused. One might argue American Corporations have entered that fight and are doing good work on our behalf. But then, why should they get to dictate? And if not them... who?

There are serious and unresolved issues over modern speech.
Click to expand...
What corporations are silencing people?

People have become so coddled and entitled that they think ‘decline to publish your speech at my own expense’ means I’m silencing you.
 
fskimospy said:
I think they will argue the law is facially neutral and should be upheld, and they are correct that the law is facially neutral.

The main question will end up being if the courts decide that because the people making the law clearly and repeatedly said it was to attack disfavored speech that violates the 1st amendment or if they pretend not to notice that happened like with the Muslim ban.
Click to expand...

Which law are you talking about though?
 
fskimospy said:
The one revoking Disney’s special district status.
Click to expand...

Gotcha. Yeah, I could see that as they're applying it to all 6 that currently exist. But, the counter to that is that the timing is suspicious and kind of targeted as it doesn't apply to those created after a certain time frame either (Villages is exempt for example, huh ... wonder why). And, again, they have direct quotes from Rep Shine on numerous occasions. None of which discuss anything other than Disney, so it makes the ploy to apply to all special districts all the more transparent. Unless they have examples of the other districts "behaving badly" or "instilling California values".
 
All of this from a guy that "won" by ~30k votes.

Sure is an interesting case for how covid deaths will impact polling/elections going forward.
 
Pens1566 said:
They absolutely should. But I'm fearful they won't. Disney gets to wipe $2B debt off their books, doesn't piss off ~40% of their customer base, and doesn't suffer any further negative impacts to their multi billion dollar central FL empire. Might just be the cynic in me, but I could see them going that route as well.
Click to expand...
Yeah. The way it stands today, I think Reedy Creek protects nearby citizens just as much as Disney. However, I doubt Disney wants to give up the ability to quickly add/improve infrastructure.

The Debt is held by the district, not Disney, so it isn't cleaning their books. But it is paid for by direct taxes on Disney and Disney's Customers. The second RCID goes away, Disney will negotiate huge tax giveaways from the new city and it'll be on their citizens to pay for this debt and future infrastructure.
 
ivwshane said:
On one hand I don’t beeline in constitutional rights for corporations. On the other hand, as currently ruled by the Supreme Court, corporations are people and are entitled to constitutional rights. Seeing as how Disney exercise is first amendment rights and desantis is clearly looking to punish them for it, it certainly seems like the most clear cut violation of the first amendment.


Honestly, I’m surprised it’s taken this long to figure out.
Click to expand...
I don't believe corporations are people, but I think the bill of rights should still apply to them where it makes sense. Freedom to publicly speak out about government policies seems like a pretty obvious one, especially since the speaking out was done by actual people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top