News Reedy Creek Improvement District and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District

[Sirwalterraleigh]

A cake maker in Colorado probably disagrees with you.

AHA!!!


(…that’s the best you could come up with, huh?)

 

[Disstevefan1]

Yes.
I also see them donating a lot to every challenger to DeSantis and the state reps and senators who voted for this.

Donating to politics (EVEN BOTH SIDES) is what got Disney into this mess.. Besides, Chapek can save $$$ by donating to NO ONE!

 

[durangojim]

No, it is not. Private entities should be free to criticize the government. Legislators enacting laws based on the personal grievances of an executive is incredibly dangerous.

Like increasing taxes on “the rich”? Lol

 

[lazyboy97o]

Freedom of speech does not remove freedom of consequence.

When the one seeking to impose the consequence is the government, that is exactly what it is!

 

[SirLink]

I could agree if you're referring to public criticism and backlash in certain media and even public callouts by DeSantis, along with people boycotting Disney, not going to the parks, canceling Disney+, etc. Obviously when you make a stand on a hot topic you're inviting the possibility of bringing that on. But I don't think DeSantis's move regarding RCID is really defensible.

Disney could of stayed quiet and told its employees 'we are an entertainment company, not a political institution' instead of picking a political fight in Florida

 

[mkt]

Freedom of speech does not remove freedom of consequence.

You might want to read up on caselaw and the constitution: Freedom of speech in the US is freedom of speech without government consequences (with obvious exceptions for screaming fire, threatening life of POTUS, etc).

How is what the State of Florida doing NOT a first amendment violation?

 

[Chip Chipperson]

Freedom of speech does not remove freedom of consequence.

It does when the government is imposing the consequences. That's literally the thing the Furst Amendment prohibits. Individuals can boycott Disney all they want over this issue if they feel so inclined. The government has no right - literally no right - to punish speech.

 

[mkt]

Disney could of stayed quiet and told its employees 'we are an entertainment company, not a political institution' instead of picking a political fight in Florida

And as is their right, they chose to speak up.

 

[ctrlaltdel]

Disney could of stayed quiet and told its employees 'we are an entertainment company, not a political institution' instead of picking a political fight in Florida

I mean we could talk all day about how they screwed the pooch on this one. They managed to make everyone angry on both sides of the issue. Of course they made the people in power angry last and those folks want to make Disney pay… even if it’s not thought out and lashing out likely won’t help the state of Florida and it’s people.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

Disney could of stayed quiet and told its employees 'we are an entertainment company, not a political institution' instead of picking a political fight in Florida

Nope. Corporations are able to make campaign contributions, and they should absolutely stand against laws that even hint at causing increased bigotry and reduction of human rights.

 

[durangojim]

Disney could of stayed quiet and told its employees 'we are an entertainment company, not a political institution' instead of picking a political fight in Florida

Or just say that they disagree with the legislation as written and will work to continue to support the LGBTQ community.
Chapek should have anticipated this. It was a major blunder the way it played out. Also those of you talking about this being a first amendment violation (which it may be) are acting like anyone really cares or follows the constitution anymore other than people complaining on the internet. Yes I’m jaded about politics and government and don’t trust either side.

 

[lordsigma]

Disney could of stayed quiet and told its employees 'we are an entertainment company, not a political institution' instead of picking a political fight in Florida

Sure - and then they wouldn't get the press attention and people punishing them with their wallet. Again - I agree that opening your mouth on a controversial topic opens yourself up to criticism and backlash from those who will object to what you are opining on. But retaliation by the government for speech is on a whole different level.

 

[SirLink]

When the one seeking to impose the consequence is the government, that is exactly what it is!

Not when Disney internally was issuing libelous statements at a company retreat, re:new legislation, if that was the UK - Disney would be in high court paying damages.

 

[Midwest Elitist]

A cake maker in Colorado probably disagrees with you.

They won their case.

Guessing you're one of those anti civil rights act "Libertarians", huh?

 

[Chip Chipperson]

Not when Disney internally was issuing libelous statements at a company retreat, re:new legislation, if that was the UK - Disney would be in high court paying damages.

What was libelous?

 

[mkt]

Donating to politics (EVEN BOTH SIDES) is what got Disney into this mess.. Besides, Chapek can save $$$ by donating to NO ONE!

I am beyond certain that Disney is preparing to bombard every politician who supported then, and the challengers to those that didn't with more money than they need to win.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Donating to politics (EVEN BOTH SIDES) is what got Disney into this mess.. Besides, Chapek can save $$$ by donating to NO ONE!

Then they got into this mess 80 years ago…that’s your take?

Don’t worry…they are invincible after all.

 

[lazyboy97o]

You might want to read up on caselaw and the constitution: Freedom of speech in the US is freedom of speech without government consequences (with obvious exceptions for screaming fire, threatening life of POTUS, etc).

How is what the State of Florida doing NOT a first amendment violation?

Even yelling fire in a crowded fire isn’t actually illegal. It was an example given as part of the establishment of the “clear and present danger” doctrine that was replaced over 50 years ago.

Not when Disney internally was issuing libelous statements at a company retreat, re:new legislation, if that was the UK - Disney would be in high court paying damages.

It doesn’t matter what Disney was saying. You are just wrong. Florida is not in the UK.

 

[LAKid53]

In order for the Legislature to dissolve an active independent special district created and operating pursuant to a special act, the special act dissolving the active independent special district must be approved by a majority of the resident electors of the district or, for districts in which a majority of governing body members are elected by landowners, a majority of the landowners voting in the same manner by which the independent special district’s governing body is elected. If a local general-purpose government passes an ordinance or resolution in support of the dissolution, the local general-purpose government must pay any expenses associated with the referendum required under this paragraph.

^from a Florida statute in regards to special districts. So it looks like this is the roadblock that will stop it from actually happening. I doubt anyone living in the district would vote to dissolve it.

Yeah...the 20 or so residents.

 

[Disstevefan1]

I wonder if all of this will impact Disneys decisions on moving some divisions over to Florida now.

Probably. Now anything Disney tries to do in Florida will get pushback or slow walked,
Too bad. I was looking forward to the campus in FL
That's probably not going to happen now.