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

[lazyboy97o]

And further to that we are specifically referring to punishing these companies if they don’t act as the state desires them to act politically. They are saying unless you support us and our agendas we will punish you.

I’m not sure I’d consider Twitter refusing a buy out as a political move.

 

[GimpYancIent]

Exactly. Between Disney and Twitter, the state of Florida has very openly declared that it is going to use the power of the state to punish companies that do not act as they desire. This isn’t about getting involved in Florida politics, it’s about trying to control private actions including those outside of Florida.

Twitter? Elon is handling that not the government.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Twitter? Elon is handling that not the government.

The governor doesn’t like that Twitter rejected Elon’s offer and is seeking to act against the board.

 

[drizgirl]

DeSantis ultimately has Disney over a barrel here as they can't exactly relocate WDW and WDW provides a very juicy target for political theatre as this whole turn of events has shown.

A small fact you would think Chapek would have been aware of as he jumped into this the way he did.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

I’m not discussing legalities.
I don’t ever remember any politicians stating that they were all not allowed to discuss politics and social issues…can you just imagine…?!?!?!!!!!
This site clearly did…why not just open the “Politics and Social Issues” forum up again…it would make the folks that run this place look less like hypocrites.

So the quote from a FL legislator when announcing the plan to (and reason for) dissolving the RCID wasn't telling Disney not to voice their opinions? "If Disney wants to embrace woke ideology then it's only fitting they should be regulated by Orange County," sure sounds like someone who took a political donation from Disney telling Disney not to discuss politics. Butbyoubseem to be okay with that much higher level of hypocrisy, so I don't see why you'd have a problem with it here (especially since some amount of political discussion has been allowed;in this thread so long as it remains on topic - and the mods have explained why they don't want to expand it beyond that (and the reason isn't "someone might say something that opposes what I think."

 

[peter11435]

I’m not sure I’d consider Twitter refusing a buy out as a political move.

I was actually referring to SB 7072

 

[GimpYancIent]

The governor doesn’t like that Twitter rejected Elon’s offer and is seeking to act against the board.

The board has an obligation to act in the interest of the investors it represents. The actions of the board have not been in the interest of the investors. There are consequences.

 

[DBM]

All companies should stay out of the political arena or risk losing half the population. Disney should just stick to entertainment!

 

[Sir_Cliff]

People don’t realize how scary this is or what the future implications are. And I’m not referring to its impact on Disney.

I feel like I am repeating myself a lot here, but I keep being stunned at how much people are shrugging at the government openly launching legislation to retaliate against and effectively silence opinions with which it disagrees on the basis that the democratic process doesn't function that well anyway. If I lived in the United States, I would be very worried about where the country is heading.

 

[castlecake2.0]

So when is Reedy Creek going to make their move?

 

[peter11435]

I feel like I am repeating myself a lot here, but I keep being stunned at how much people are shrugging at the government openly launching legislation to retaliate against and effectively silence opinions with which it disagrees on the basis that the democratic process doesn't function that well anyway. If I lived in the United States, I would be very worried about where the country is heading.

Many of us are

 

[JusticeDisney]

And one more point. After having read through most of this thread, it still astounds me that some people actually think that this move is going to harm WDW in any meaningful way.

 

[Bender123]

And further to that we are specifically referring to punishing these companies if they don’t act as the state desires them to act politically. They are saying unless you support us and our agendas we will punish you.

What a weird comment...Americans, overwhelmingly, dont support corporations buying influence in governments and Disney and Twitter were fine as neutral entities. The moment either threw in on a political stance is when it opened itself for consequences from the government elected by the people...Hell, Disney would have been fine if it just maintained the stance that it had no opinion on it, but the cast can act in their own way after work. Nobody really cared when Disney originally said they werent going to take a stance on it

I guess that if a company doesn't want to reap damage from political action, they should just avoid being overtly political.

 

[John park hopper]

How long will Capek last as Disney stock continues to decline? Disney as a corporation's has every right to voice their opinion on political matters. Florida has every right reviewing sweet deals made with Walt 50 years ago. If Florida rescinds those deals, it does not infringe on Disney's right to continue voicing their opinion 1st amendment violation argument is nonsense.

 

[DBM]

And further to that we are specifically referring to punishing these companies if they don’t act as the state desires them to act politically. They are saying unless you support us and our agendas we will punish you.

not true. this is about keeping these companies out of the political arena. They have no business being there and should just stick to what they do best...entertainment!

 

[the_rich]

This brings up a a question that I have. If someone or something like a corporation does something that causes the government to scrutinize that thing and then either pass a law that negatively affects the first party is it only “illegal” if the government says “we’re doing this to retaliate for X”?
I have heard at various points over the past couple decades that Florida has looked at modifying the RCID deal so if they had passed the bill 2 years ago would it have been fine? And if so how then does the process violate 1A?

Basically yes. Getting rid of rcid in and of itself isn't the issue. Its the blatant punishment because of their opinion.

 

[JusticeDisney]

How long will Capek last as Disney stock continues to decline? Disney as a corporation's has every right to voice their opinion on political matters. Florida has every right reviewing sweet deals made with Walt 50 years ago. If Florida rescinds those deals, it does not infringe on Disney's right to continue voicing their opinion 1st amendment violation argument is nonsense.

Me thinks you might not understand exactly how the first amendment protections actually work.

 

[the_rich]

How long will Capek last as Disney stock continues to decline? Disney as a corporation's has every right to voice their opinion on political matters. Florida has every right reviewing sweet deals made with Walt 50 years ago. If Florida rescinds those deals, it does not infringe on Disney's right to continue voicing their opinion 1st amendment violation argument is nonsense.

Except that they have blatantly said they are doing it because of said speech. If they wanted to rescind the deal that's fine. But they went a step further and revealed that it was as a punishment. That is indeed a 1st amendment violation.

 

[lazyboy97o]

What a weird comment...Americans, overwhelmingly, dont support corporations buying influence in governments and Disney and Twitter were fine as neutral entities. The moment either threw in on a political stance is when it opened itself for consequences from the government elected by the people...Hell, Disney would have been fine if it just maintained the stance that it had no opinion on it, but the cast can act in their own way after work. Nobody really cared when Disney originally said they werent going to take a stance on it

I guess that if a company doesn't want to reap damage from political action, they should just avoid being overtly political.

not true. this is about keeping these companies out of the political arena. They have no business being there and should just stick to what they do best...entertainment!

A number of persons have made public statements that this is about the content of Disney’s entertainment.

Even then, being political is legal and protected in the US.

 

[GimpYancIent]

Interesting how an entity i.e. Corporation or Company can have it's talking head "CEO" speak for the entity as a person, YET!, the people (the staffing / work force) also have the right to speak for themselves (as individuals) and present their own views / thoughts regardless of what the entities talking head says.