Desantis seeks to punish Disney for disagreeing with him

I get that and it may or not be right or wrong. I acknowledge the possibility that it is correct. At the same time when debating and deciding constitutional issues we have to go with the evidence. Statements by government powers that they want to punish a private enterprise for their opposition to their policies.

If you have more evidence of a history of animosity list of grievances, I would love to examine that.

 

DeSantis already signed the bill. It doesn't go into effect until 2023. It does allow for renegotiation. Basically DeSantis is holding Disney at bay until after the elections.

Im not a fan of this but unfortunately this is politics as usual across the board.

 

My demand is that they better not screw up all the marvel and new IPs they just got

don’t turn Wolverine gay or professor X into a handicap dude
Oh wait

 

Let's be honest.
This will not hurt Disney for long.
Disney has more than enough money to basically
infiltrate and take over both of those counties.
They can simply grease all the palms in a 50 mile radius

Distribute the debt and reap the benefit
They have so many lawyers . .. this will be nothing more than a bump in the road.

Rocket River

 

Disney doesn’t want what happened to Netflix where their stocked nose dived . Netflix had to cancel a bunch of projects because of this .

also they came up with insane idea for a $6000 a stay hotel

 

I don’t have to accept that at all even though I know they are a corporate profit driven machine. Trust me… I know that. However they are inshrined in the constitution for a reason. There is a duty they have unlike any other business, and fail to see anyone really stepping up to deliver on what the constitution calls for. If Americans show a high level of acceptance it gives executives at nbc, abc, att, Disney, etc. every indication that they are doing it right … which they are not.

Also the Sunday shows are a good example of simply protest non watching not being good enough. Because Democrats refuse to watch shills like Chuck Todd on Sunday the executives and their producers just see a right leaning audience tuning in and think they just need to keep their audience they already have tuning in and then you get more and more Republicans cleaning up their image to a more than wiling Chuck Todd. So me just saying… well I’m just not gonna watch CNN anymore isn’t enough. A little bit of outrage and a little less acceptance is a good thing imo.

 

The only think usual here is you sh$tting on Democrats and apologizing for the right while trying to act like you have a self appointed high ground.

To your point about Citizens United… that ruling is a cancer that could kill our democracy. Yes it was wrongfully decided and the right wing SCOTUS justices who ruled on it sold out to the billionaire class. What is wrong about CU though is that it allows for essentially unlimited political donations from a corporate entity under the guise of “free speech” which gives far too much power to an entity to bribe elected officials legally now.

Corporations shouldn’t be subject to the same rights as individuals but corporate executives should individually have the same rights as anyone else.

So if Bob Chapek wants to individually say the don’t say gay bill is wrong he can and he has the position to say that it is the position that he sees as a position for Disney. However Bob Chapeks political DONATIONS are treated with the same limitations as you or me have. $2,900 per election. That law should be consistent between you, me, and Bob Chapek.

So yes Citizens United was wrongfully and corruptly decided imo. However the ceo of Disney has a right to free speech just as you or I do. Disney executives have the right to say things and not have the power of the state punishing them or rewarding them for helping or hurting them politically. That is textbook fascism. If a corporate executive says something illegal like “on January 6th, I call on “patriots” to storm the capital and help keep Trump in power!!” which is inciting violence among other crimes, then the state or the federal government has the right through the DOJ or state and local law enforcement to act. This isn’t that though and you know this.

Another day.. another SpaceGhost sh$tpost.

 

You've just here undercut what little argument you have for making the Florida incident a "free speech" issue.

Corporations historically don't have the First Amendment free speech rights that individuals do. Then, gradually, "free speech" type protections were afforded to certain types (not all types) of "commercial speech"--advertising and the like. Corporate "political speech" was not protected.

This starts to change over time as well, and Citizen's United is the first case where corporations are afforded "free speech" rights, but (my reading) mainly as you say as applied to political donations. I don't think Citizen's United really applies to corporate political speech in non-election settings, but it is important to note that this is an EVOLVING AREA OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, and so is not just easy to say "Citizen's United says corporations have free speech!!" which again is the DD claim made above, and as usual, DD stands for often wrong, never in doubt.

I think this is an issue that will continue to be adjudicated in the future and will continue to evolve as a result. Who knows, Disney may sue Florida and hopefully the case will reach the U.S. Supreme Court after Disney loses at every level.

here's a basic primer on corporate free speech, obviously the topic is more complicated than just this summary:

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/939/corporate-speech

 

another consideration: Disney really doesn't have a claim here that they are being discriminated against. What would be discriminatory is if everyone in the Disney neighborhood (including Disney) were taxed at precisely the same rate. Then in response to Disney complaining about the 'Don't Say Gay' law, government quadruples Disney's taxes while everyone else's stays exactly the same. In this case, Disney could bring what in New York State is called an Article 78 proceeding (I don't know if Florida has a similar appeals process) to make the case that they have been unfairly singled out and treated in an arbitrary and capricious and potentially discriminatory manner by the state of Florida.

Disney of course cannot do that here, because Disney is in the unique position of having been granted the Disney district privilege from the state of Florida back in the 1960s, and it is now that privilege or perk that is being withdrawn. So Disney's in kind of a tight spot.

I've used the Captain Sobel analogy already this week, but it seems to fit here as well. Disney tried to give Florida the Lieutenant Winters treatment, only problem is that like Winters, Florida called Captain Sobel's bluff

 

as luck would have it

https://nypost.com/2022/04/22/disney-totally-earned-its-slapdown-from-florida-lawmakers/

Disney totally earned its slapdown from Florida lawmakers
By
Rich Lowry
April 22, 2022 5:48pm
Updated

Just like that, tyranny has descended on Florida.

The state legislature, with the support of Gov. Ron DeSantis, voted to repeal the “special independent district” enjoyed by Disney for half-a-century.

This is a sign, we are told, of the advent of an American authoritarianism that brooks no dissent — Disney criticizes a measure supported by the Florida GOP, the so-called “Don’t Say Gay” bill, and immediately gets targeted.

There’s a reason this fight escalated to this point, though. Disney was the aggressor in the battle over the education bill, lied about it and pledged to work to repeal it.

Even though the bill had nothing to do with Disney whatsoever — nothing to do with its product, its business model or its employees. The company got pushed into its stance based on pressure from a woke segment of its employees and from progressives on the outside.

Disney’s case against the bill relied on the smear that the legislation somehow threatened gay or trans people. In fact, the law merely seeks to exclude inappropriate material from being taught to young children in the classroom — an objective that once would have been considered utterly banal.

“Classroom instruction,” the law says, “by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.”

Based on that, Disney went to the mattresses. And it did so, not to serve its shareholders, enhance its profitability, protect its intellectual property or align itself with its vast and politically diverse customer base.

This was, shockingly, an iconic American brand making itself into a free-floating weapon of woke cultural politics in response to the social and political influence of a small number of vocal progressives.

Like so many companies before, Disney calculated the risk/reward of gratuitously taking up a left-wing political and cultural fight and considered it all reward, no risk. The Florida legislature decided to convince it that it was wrong.

Republicans have fantasized about exacting revenge on woke corporations before, but to no effect. Disney’s problem is that it had a glaring vulnerability in the form of an arrangement that can easily be portrayed as a special favor.

The provisions allowing Disney to govern itself in its special independent district are so extensive that one analyst refers to the so-called Reedy Creek Improvement District as “the Vatican with mouse ears.”

“Never before or since has such outlandish dominion been given to a private corporation,” the Florida writer Carl Hiaasen notes in his book “Team Rodent.” “Disney owns its own utilities. It administers its own planning and zoning. It composes its own building codes and employs its own inspectors. It maintains its own fire department. It even has the authority to levy taxes.”

For good measure, it can build its own airport and nuclear power plant.

Now, that’s all scheduled to go away in a year’s time. Obviously, it is not a good practice for government to retaliate against a business, even a business enjoying a special status.

This fight could have welcome effects, though, if it convinces Disney it made a mistake by allowing itself to get bullied and cajoled into becoming a combatant in the culture war, and convinces other corporations that there’s a potential price to be paid for joining woke mobs.

Republicans don’t want corporations to become tools in advancing their agenda; they just want them to exit the culture wars and focus, once again, on their business, an outcome that would lower the temperature in the country’s cultural fights at least a little.

Ideally, Disney and the Florida legislature work out a renewal of the company’s special district before it is set to expire, and that the house of mouse — and other corporations seduced into making themselves de facto left-wing pressure groups — resolves to stick to its core competency and mission.
​

 

So a state government did action on a private corporation based on speech from the corporation criticizing state government.

Sounds awesome for free speech.

 

play stupid games, win stupid prizes

 

Political speech was exactly what 1A was most concerned about.

As I said before, one good thing about this is it exposed the faux free speech supporters.

When principles are faux, justifications are like the wind, and googling is an excellent friend.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/travel/2022/04/22/florida-disney-reedy-creek-desantis/

How Florida’s war with Disney could change the park experience
A change to Disney tax status could mean hiccups for new attractions and possibly higher prices for visitors, experts say
By Hannah Sampson
Yesterday at 5:06 p.m. EDT

When travelers think of Disney World, they probably think of rides, castles, a giant mouse and an even-more-humongous price tag. Questions of trash collection, fire-rescue services and building codes probably don’t come to mind.

Suddenly, those behind-the-scenes operations became front and center when the Florida legislature voted this week to undo the special district that Disney operates in. The Republican-led move comes amid a month-long squabble between the company and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) over the Parental Rights in Education bill, which restricts discussion about gender identity and sexual orientation in schools. Disney said the company’s goal was for the measure, which critics call the “don’t say gay" law, to be repealed or struck down in court.

Established in 1967, the Reedy Creek Improvement District allows Disney to essentially prop up its own government, tax itself and use that money to provide services such as trash collection, flood control, power distribution, road maintenance, fire and emergency medical services, and water treatment. The district also oversees its own building code and issues permits, giving Disney more control over what it builds. It contracts with the Orange County Sheriff’s Office for law enforcement.

DeSantis signed the bill into law Friday. If the law is not tied up in legal challenges or repealed over the next year, the district will be dissolved on June 1, 2023. Disney declined to comment Friday.

So what would change for visitors to Disney next summer? It’s not entirely clear, but local observers pointed to more cumbersome processes for Disney to build new attractions, potential hiccups in transitioning to public services and increased expenses for Disney — which could mean higher prices.

Aubrey Jewett, a political science professor at the University of Central Florida, said he thinks that the company will try to shield customers from the negative impact of any changes in services.

“You don’t know that they’ll be able to,” he said. “You just don’t know when you’re talking about all these basic county-level services that have been provided by Reedy Creek but now might have to be provided by someone else.”

He said the entire ordeal will cost Disney, whether they choose to appeal the legislation in court or just opt to work out a transition. And operating under a system where they need to seek county approval for new projects could cost more time and money, too.

“Might that be passed along in increased ticket price? Maybe,” Jewett said. “Disney has really been aggressive in raising prices across the years. In my way of thinking, they don’t need much more of a nudge to raise them again.”

Richard Foglesong, author of the book “Married to the Mouse,” said that if the district is dismantled, Disney will not have the level of control to provide its own public services and approve its own projects to develop and build faster than competitors. He said it’s not clear yet if doing away with Reedy Creek will hurt the bottom line.

“I think there’s subtle ways in which Disney would miss its controls, would prefer to have complete control aesthetically and otherwise,” he said. He said a huge advantage of the special district is that Disney can develop and build attractions faster than its competitors because it’s not subject to the same planning and zoning requirements.

“They will now have to go and ask permission.” Jewett said. “That in itself, I think, that’s going to cost more money, more time, more resources.”

But he pointed out that other theme parks are already subject to county approvals when they want to expand. Rivals SeaWorld Orlando and Universal Orlando Resort are nearby; neither have the kind of self-governing power that Disney wields.

"Universal is in the midst of massive expansion, and they seem to be able to get what they want from Orange County,” Jewett said.

Foglesong, a retired political science professor at Rollins College in Winter Park, Fla., said Disneyland also “does just fine” without the same self-governing structure in California.

“It plays politics like other big corporations with lobbying and campaign contributions to get its way from the city of Anaheim,” he said.

He questioned how committed Disney might be to keeping the original Reedy Creek structure in Central Florida. He said someone will have to pay for infrastructure and debt if the district is abolished. He wondered: What if that someone ends up being the state of Florida?

“Maybe those promoting the legislation are going to end up paying the price, not just financially but maybe with voters,” he said. “This could end up looking like a bailout of Disney.”

Even if the Reedy Creek district is abolished and Disney has to adjust to a new governing structure, Jewett said, he thinks the company will be fine.

"Is Disney going to get what they want? Probably most of the time, yes," he said. "They're hugely important to our economy."

Jewett added: “I see no reasons in the world Orange and Osceola County would not generally continue to work in a very positive way with Disney to try to make sure that they’re successful and get what they want.”
​

​

 

6/1/23, or after the mid-term and next year's legislative session. The timing is obvious.

This is not at all usual. Not on either side. Which other governor has signed a law to punish a company for their speech?

 

no, actually corporations really don't have what we think of as "free speech rights" under the First Amendment. that's just not (historically) the case

 

It's great for free speech. I know it's like your favorite subject.