Under the law Disney is 100% a private citizen. What are you talking about? The government of Florida took this action in retaliation for Disney speaking in a way Florida does not like. This is a blatant violation of the first amendment. The government is not permitted to begin or end business deals based on the contents of Disney's speech.
So you are against the first amendment and freedom of speech? You spoke out about California's government all the time, should they have been allowed to deny you building permits?
If we want to revisit corporate personhood as a legal idea I'm down with that but under current US law Disney is clearly a 'person' with a first amendment right to freedom of speech. Florida punished them for speaking in ways the state didn't like, which is unconstitutional.
Why stop there? Remember the fake 'IRS scandal' where conservative groups were falsely thought to have been targeted for audits? Under Greenman's logic Biden should audit them back to the stone age as they are getting what they asked for - they stepped into the political arena and now they're going to suffer the consequences for speaking in ways the government doesn't like.
Disney World is already at capacity. They are increasing prices to keep the crowds down. It would make sense for them to start a 3rd park. Probbaly somewhere in the Mid-West. While they wouldn't be closing down Disney World, it would make Florida nervous.
I think if Disney were to open another theme park in the Americas, southern Mexico (Veracruz maybe) or somewhere in South America would make the most sense. In the US, it's either Texas or someplace with too much winter, neither of which have strong appeal.
Too close to Florida, hitting the same one day drive market.
So you don't think corporations should be protected from retribution from the government? It doesn't have to be all or nothing. A corporation can have speech, but it can't have religion. Money shouldn't be considered speech, but actually speech should be.
Growing up in Oklahoma, I've always known that love of freedom of speech and religion meant "My Speach, My religion."
"Corporations protected from retribution from the government" is not the same thing as granting corporations first amendment rights. Corporations are government chartered entities and should be granted only those privileges deemed to be in the public interest. IMHO, free speech is not one of privileges that should be granted to corporations.
Citizens United would like a word.
Midwest would cut out an entire portion of the year that the park would have to be closed down, rides disassembled for the season, etc. I have doubts Disney would build a park anywhere that revenue would be so limited by seasons.
They should leak that they are looking somewhere to build WDW2.
This is a slam dunk case of First Amendment relatiation. It's not even a close case. Disney has a legal right of action against the State of Florida under 42 USC 1983. The following jury instruction defines the elements of that claim:
.9.11 Particular Rights—First Amendment—"Citizen" Plaintiff | Model Jury Instructions
www.ce9.uscourts.gov
So long as corporations having First Amendment rights is current law, these laws apply. There is literally a federal statute that grants a civil right of action for any level of government taking punitive action against a private citizen in retaliation for something they said. It is illegal and unconstitutional, period. Zero ambiguity.
So does that mean you are good with the government punishing corporations for speech? Knowing this would include charities like Planned Parenthood, and collective action corporations like HOAs and Unions. Your HOA president runs against the mayor, say goodbye to your trash collection.
Facebook
Twitter