Desantis seeks to punish Disney for disagreeing with him

here's a pre-Citizens United (1992) law review article. skim it, reflect on the following passages and the subsequent analysis trying to build a theory of corporate free speech, and then come back with more snarky comments

https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.ed...erer=&httpsredir=1&article=1854&context=wlulr

 

Hey I love the anti-corportisim. Just wish libertarians(conservatives/right wingers essentially I guess?) cared about it in regards to citizens united ruling when it comes to corporate political speech(bribery) rather than a corporation speaking publicly against a vague authoritarian bill that would prevent teachers from telling 6 year olds "transgender people exist and they struggle through a lot but are humans who deserve respect". Yes, I'm sorry but the bill is vaguely worded enough where a test could get sued in Florida for saying what I just typed to a kid.

 

Somehow I dont think you share the same sentiment regarding Chic-Fil-A.

Everything I know about CU seems to be wrong.

All actions have reactions. The Mouse got in a pissing contest with the governor. I like DeSantis but I do not agree with this (oh what a novel idea! I can actually disagree with someone who I currently support). However this is not a free speech issue.

 

What is the sentiment about Chick-fil-A? I don't get it? Is this about private consumers boycotting Chick-fil-A back in the day when their owner was funding anti-lgbtq causes?

 

What government acted against CFA? Or in your attempt to defend the retrumplican governor of FL's actions against Disney you intentionally or unintentionally attempt to mislead people?

And it was not a "pissing content". The executive leadership team of Disney criticized a law they felt discriminated against their employees and customers. And for expressing those criticisms, the governor of FL used legislative actions to punish the executives of Disney and thus used legislative actions to squelch freedom of speech.

 

Hey if communists want to know of an opening to take over the country just make all corporations have a "gay agenda" and you'll finally have the people who absolutely despised government intervention and communism's creep up come.to your side and finally have the summer of the state to suppress these mega corps.

 

DeSantis should return all of the campaign donations Disney made directly to him and the PAC that financed his campaign as well.

After all, he (and his defenders) think Disney should stay out of politics.

 

Just as desantis and retrumplicans are trying to get gays, trans, and racism out of text books...

 

This country will be in great shape if DeSantis runs for president after Trump's 2024 term.... Trump will basically have to clean up the disaster this government has caused but DeSantis can finally get to work on making America greater than ever...

 

So whether Disney should be getting tax breaks, whether anyone agrees or disagrees with Disney's statements about the bill change that this is government action taken expressly to punish Disney for opposing government policy.

It is anti-Democracy and meant to curtail their free speech.

Disney had a right to voice their opposition. Rich Lowry can call it woke all he wants. It doesn't change the fact that government powers took government action in an effort to punish them for opposition and send a message to others.

 

Lowry's article is confusing to me. He says..

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.

Isn't Lowry opining about a company and a bill that has nothing to do with him?

 

this is one (1) issue

this "retaliatory action" (if that is in fact what it is versus being a type of preemptive shot across the bow in the face of an increasingly powerful and potentially intrusive Disney presence in Florida) is a second (2) and separate issue.

this "free speech" talking point is a third (3) issue and not a particularly compelling one. Disney continues to be free to say whatever it wants. No one has deplatformed Disney, cancelled Disney, censored Disney, or anything else that resembles actual censorship.

As an aside, it is somewhat amusing to see all the posters who resist the conversation about genuine censorship in the two other "censorship" threads all of a sudden come to the defense of Disney in this instance crying "censorship!! censorship!!!"

Of course they did. This right to voice whatever they'd like is a fourth (4) issue. Whether voicing that opposition was politically prudent or not is a fifth (5) issue.

yes, that is his free speech right. If he is expressing it as an individual, that would be a sixth (6) issue.

How government acts toward corporations is a seventh (7) issue that has many constituent/component parts. Governments both reward and punish businesses on a daily basis.

As a final aside, I will say that I am happy to see so very many pro-business progressives here, a relatively new phenomenon in the D&D that I shall declare an eighth (8) issue.

 

nothing there is confusing. Disney's business is to entertain and to create profits for its shareholders. Disney's business is not elementary school education.

 

“across the board” …. Sounds an awful lot like Trumpy “on both sides”.

I cannot think of one analogous action by. Dem politician, Nevermind one of DeSantis’ profile and aspirations to be the 2024 nominee. Enlighten me. I’m serious, I don’t pretend to have full knowledge or recall. I’d like to know what Dems are doing that’s remotely similar. I’ll wait.

*****

The entire Republican Party is based on who can wage the loudest culture war to curry favor with the dummies that are the Republican base. Scream about CRT. Fabricate crisis on parents rights being trod upon. Yell about pedophelia. Wail about grooming. Go anti gay, and then claim victim hood.
The morons eat it up.

 

So, then you agree that Disney should stay out of politics regardless of their employees input?

While the bill may not directly affect Disney as a corporation, it does directly and indirectly affect a number of their employees.

 

this is a straw man, i.e., putting words in my mouth, and a loaded question to boot. if you would like to discuss the challenges of corporate managers being forced to speak (a) on behalf of shareholders, versus (b) on behalf of their "company" as a whole, versus (c) on behalf of their employees, versus (d) on behalf of their customers, versus (e) many other stakeholders that managers might find themselves "representing," then great! let's have THAT conversation; and why don't YOU start that thread.

Your question incidentally is related to a large part of the analysis in the Washington and Lee Law Review article I linked to.

 

Shouldn't a business support their employees? Disney has around 80,000 employees in Florida. Doesn't that give them the right to support or not support legislation that affects those employees?

Lowry writes that the bill has nothing to do with Disney whatsoever.

He is wrong. That is my argument. The bill potentially affects (directly or indirectly) tens of thousands of their employees. So the bill does affect Disney.

And... if they arrangement between Disney and Florida was so bad, why is it just now being addressed?

 

You guys got a lot of patience. I got no time for bad faith arguments, especially from someone that combs the web for years to come up with all kinds of twisted logic articles justifying supporting no limit on free speech, then suddenly something about its not free speech in a case that is pretty slam dunk about free speech.