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

[Brian]

But what if everyone in the state of NJ (including every current and future state elected official) publicly hates the Ku Klux Klan? Is it your position that under those circumstances, the state of NJ must subsidize the Klan editorials forever?

EDIT: I keep asking this repeatedly because there are two defensible answers:

1. Yes, first amendment law mandates the state of NJ subsidize Ku Klux Klan editorials forever, or
2. No, that's absurd. If that were true, then a conservative legislature could grant an entity like the NRA unbelievable benefits and then if the legislature ever switched parties, the liberal legislature couldn't rescind it because everyone knows liberals hate the NRA. And the same thing would be true of a liberal legislature granting benefits to Planned Parenthood.

I understand the philosophical quandary you are presenting here, and certainly how it relates to the RCID situation, however, the first amendment is not there to suit the political whims of those in power at any given moment. In fact, in reading writings by the Founding Fathers, you could surmise that the first amendment was put into place to protect speech one disagrees with, not to prop up the speech those in power concur with.

I believe the point you are trying to make is that if the ideological makeup of the Executive and Legislative branches of the New Jersey government somehow remains the same in perpetuity, there would never be a "good opportunity" to remove the tax exemption without appearing to be retaliating against the views of the publication. If that were the case, then the government would have to either: A.) Bite their tongue and let it be, which would be the "safest" option, or B.) Do what Gov. DeSantis and the legislature did in Florida, and eliminate the tax exemption, while letting the courts decide if it was a violation of the company's first amendment rights.

If "option B" is opted for, and the courts decide that it was unlawful of the state to remove the tax exemption because the evidence is clear that it was done because of the views the company espoused, then I suppose there's your answer.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

I believe the point you are trying to make is that if the ideological makeup of the Executive and Legislative branches of the New Jersey government somehow remains the same in perpetuity, there would never be a "good opportunity" to remove the tax exemption without appearing to be retaliating against the views of the publication. If that were the case, then the government would have to either: A.) Bite their tongue and let it be, which would be the "safest" option, or B.) Do what Gov. DeSantis and the legislature did in Florida, and eliminate the tax exemption, while letting the courts decide if it was a violation of the company's first amendment rights.

Bingo. First Amendment law is not as cut and dry as it is being portrayed in this thread. That's my point. However, I am additionally making the point that if first amendment law is as it's being portrayed in this thread, then legislatures could bind future legislatures who are controlled by their political opponents forever.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Bingo. First Amendment law is not as cut and dry as it is being portrayed in this thread. That's my point.

It is when you outright say your motivations.

 

[MagicRat]

Not sure I understand your argument here. If you're stating that the political right has changed then yes, I'd agree. Just as a reminder, it was the Democrats who fought a civil war to try to maintain slavery.

Your position that I originally replied to was that the political right are the authoritarian ideologues, and, presumably, worse than the political left. I offered several recent examples of how the left, which controls the levers of power in this country, has abused those powers in the name of public health. In a constitutional republic, one does not simply get to override the rule of law because "people are dying." And if the current laws (including the constitution) do not serve the public health needs, it is up to the people's democratically elected representatives to change them. I've noticed that there has been no serious proposal from anyone in the Democrat party on the federal level to reform these public health-related laws to allow the executive branch the authority they unlawfully used this time around. Have you considered why that is?

As I stated earlier in response to another member, I would argue that the executive overreaches and impositions on the lives of ordinary Americans by the Democrat party as it relates to the pandemic are worse and far more consequential than a petty political argument between a governor and one of the largest and most powerful companies on earth. Both are bad, in my opinion, but one is decidedly worse than the other, and that's where you and I seem to disagree.

If you'd like to discuss this further, I'd be glad to do so via PM. I am catching myself drifting too far off topic from RCID and want to try to be respectful towards the wishes of our hosts.

No need, both parties have faults but what gets me going is the bully mentality of the Republican Party. It wasn’t always that way but it really gained momentum out of hate for what’s different to them, race to religion to race again and sexuality all in the name of “values”. But again the only value I see shown is ugliness.

Why this relates to the issue at hand of RCID is it is just bullying again. The governor himself said he didn’t even know the name of RCID a few weeks ago. He was stroking his giant ego and that’s bad for both sides. Hitler loved his rallies so did and does Trump. One can be a democrat or republican but when we have created dictators that’s a problem and a slippery slope.

I am a large landowner who takes care of his properly on his own and a private business owner. What the governor is doing is scary and bad for allo of us.

 

[Figment1984]

Who?

There have been many, many posts already that answer your questions. Please spend a few minutes lurking, you seem to be running straight to the post field instead of taking 10 minutes to read what has already been answered ad nauseam. Here is one such post:

Here’s some comments by key FL Republicans in the past few days. I don’t think there’s ANY question that they directly connected their actions to Disney’s comments.

Desantis:
“You’re a corporation based in Burbank, California, and you’re going to martial your economic might to attack the parents of my state? We view that as a provocation, and we’re going to fight back against that.”

“I'm just not comfortable having that type of agenda get special treatment in my state. Don't let anyone tell you that Disney is going to get a tax cut out of this. They are going to pay more taxes as a result of this."

“Disney and other woke corporations won't get away with peddling their unchecked pressure campaigns any longer"

Speaker of the House Sprowls:
“ I think what’s most troubling about Disney isn’t so much that they have disagreement with what we’ve done on policy. Lots of people disagree with what we’ve done on policy. They use their platform to perpetuate what we believe to be a lie, which is that, you know, the bill did one thing that it really didn’t do at all. And I think using its corporate power to do that, using the benefits that the taxpayers have given them for so many years to do that, is wildly inappropriate. So I think the governor’s anger was well-placed, and we’re happy to take it up.”

Rep Randy Fine:
“When Disney kicked the hornets nest several weeks ago, we started taking a look at special districts.”

“[Disney said] they want to come in and misrepresent laws that the legislator have passed, [they] actually want to tell Floridians how they should live their life the California way, and Floridians have said: "We've had enough. You're a guest in our state”

 

[MandaM]

If you can’t see how Disney unfairly being able to tax itself artificially lowers their tax bill, then your agenda has blinded you.

Yes because free market capitalists believe in granting special privileges to only a few corporations and not everyone! Right!

Ah, now the left cares about free speech when there’s pushback against their agenda! While on one hand they attack Elon Musk for trying to make Twitter a platform for free speech with no censorship, they simultaneously defend Disney’s ability to support teaching 5 year olds about pansexualism! Truly a case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing I guess!

There are 1844 other special districts in FL, including neighborhoods like the Villages. It not just available to a few corporations.

Freedom of speech only means the government can’t curtail it. It doesn’t apply to private businesses.

Disney pays MORE in taxes due to having Reedy Creek. They’d actually pay less if it was dissolved. FL collected $780 million in state and local taxes from Disney last year.

 

[Lilofan]

Some of are also upset that elected officials who have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution are violating that oath and abusing their power by punishing others for constitutionally protected free speech

Members of the Florida legislature and administration

Perhaps won’t be invited to any events at WDW anytime soon.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

There have been many, many posts already that answer your questions. Please spend a few minutes lurking, you seem to be running straight to the post field instead of taking 10 minutes to read what has already been answered ad nauseam. Here is one such post:

Oh I know the answer. I'm asking if you know the answer. And if you knew the answer, you'd know that the Lt. Gov doesn't really have a say in whether or not the legislation was passed. She doesn't get a vote and she doesn't get to sign it into law. She's no more relevant than you or I. That said, even if the Governor had said it, I'm not certain it has application to a contrary First Amendment action in this instance.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Oh I know the answer. I'm asking if you know the answer. And if you knew the answer, you'd know that the Lt. Gov doesn't really have a say in whether or not the legislation was passed. She doesn't get a vote and she doesn't get to sign it into law. She's no more relevant than you or I. That said, even if the Governor had said it, I'm not certain it has application to a contrary First Amendment action in this instance.

Representatives said it in session.

 

[IMDREW]

For someone who doesnt understand how US districts and stuff work and has no idea what all these difficult words mean, can someone tell me if this is a done deal now? Or is there still a chance none of this will go through?

I dont understand who is benefitting from this other than someone really hating Disney atm.

 

[MandaM]

Who is "they"?

The Lieutenant Governor

 

[Henry Mystic]

Not surprising. This entire thing has looked like political maneuvering to above all else ‘own’ the other side without gauging any real-world consequences.

It’s quite sad that so many don’t support free speech if they don’t agree with the other side. It’s an unfortunate trend.

Very disappointing for our democracy to be punishing executives and corporations for free speech. Our Constitution guarantees free speech (including, and especially political views) from government interference.

This is what authoritarianism looks like, and if our checks and balances work out, many of the recently passed Floridian Laws will be found Unconstitutional.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

For someone who doesnt understand how US districts and stuff work and has no idea what all these difficult words mean, can someone tell me if this is a done deal now? Or is there still a chance none of this will go through?

I dont understand who is benefitting from this other than someone really hating Disney atm.

It won't be a done deal until the day of dissolution in June 2023. Up until the day of actual dissolution, the courts can step in and basically halt the whole process.

 

[lazyboy97o]

For someone who doesnt understand how US districts and stuff work and has no idea what all these difficult words mean, can someone tell me if this is a done deal now? Or is there still a chance none of this will go through?

I dont understand who is benefitting from this other than someone really hating Disney atm.

It is now law. It can be challenged in court where the law can be declared invalid.

 

[Brian]

For someone who doesnt understand how US districts and stuff work and has no idea what all these difficult words mean, can someone tell me if this is a done deal now? Or is there still a chance none of this will go through?

I dont understand who is benefitting from this other than someone really hating Disney atm.

It is a "done deal" in the sense that the state legislature approved the legislation by getting a majority vote in both houses, and the governor has signed it, making it law.

However, I think that many, myself included, expect there to be significant discussions between Disney/RCID and elected officials to try to negotiate a new deal. Gov. DeSantis has indicated he is open to this, and plans to do so to ensure the debt burden isn't cast upon county taxpayers. There's also the potential for legal challenges, which could complicate/halt things entirely.

My guess would be that negotiations will be under way very quickly. It's less costly than litigating this in court, and can help patch up what has become very contentious relations between the state and Disney.

 

[peter11435]

That said, even if the Governor had said it, I'm not certain it has application to a contrary First Amendment action in this instance.

Curious why you would think that?

 

[flynnibus]

For someone who doesnt understand how US districts and stuff work and has no idea what all these difficult words mean, can someone tell me if this is a done deal now? Or is there still a chance none of this will go through?

I dont understand who is benefitting from this other than someone really hating Disney atm.

Its signed into law - but the execution date isn’t until next year.

But this will be in the courts long before that and that date is nothing but a deadline in a game of chicken.

 

[flynnibus]

That said, even if the Governor had said it, I'm not certain it has application to a contrary First Amendment action in this instance.

Irrelevant- its the state that will be sued - not him alone

 

[Archie123]

For someone who doesnt understand how US districts and stuff work and has no idea what all these difficult words mean, can someone tell me if this is a done deal now? Or is there still a chance none of this will go through?

I dont understand who is benefitting from this other than someone really hating Disney atm.

In this thread of “so-called experts” it’s nice to see someone say they don’t understand everything that is going on. Well done!

 

[flynnibus]

Bingo. First Amendment law is not as cut and dry as it is being portrayed in this thread. That's my point. However, I am additionally making the point that if first amendment law is as it's being portrayed in this thread, then legislatures could bind future legislatures who are controlled by their political opponents forever.

No - its easy. You make changes that are not motivated by the protected speech. Politics does this all the time by making more generalized changes to how things are done to avoid targeting or showing biased motivation.

That’s how its done - but when you hold a gun to someone’s head over their “woke” posture you clearly are not acting independent of that tooic.