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

[GoofGoof]

I think it will essentially eliminate freedom of speech, full stop. There’s no reason it would have to be limited to corporations.

The distinction is jailing or fining. It still upholds that the government cannot throw you in jail for speaking against them like the classic example of a protestor who cannot be jailed for attending a legally organized rally. For corporations there is not really a fear of jailing unless they tried to imprison the CEO or leadership which hasn’t really been a concern. Government retaliation against corporations is usually tied to damaging their ability to make a profit or operate their business. If Freedom of Speech is limited solely to no jail time and no direct fines then all these actions can be retaliation but they are still legal.

 

[RamblinWreck]

The distinction is jailing or fining. It still upholds that the government cannot throw you in jail for speaking against them like the classic example of a protestor who cannot be jailed for attending a legally organized rally. For corporations there is not really a fear of jailing unless they tried to imprison the CEO or leadership which hasn’t really been a concern. Government retaliation against corporations is usually tied to damaging their ability to make a profit or operate their business. If Freedom of Speech is limited solely to no jail time and no direct fines then all these actions can be retaliation but they are still legal.

There are a lot of ways you can mess with an individual or group without needing to jail or fine them though.

 

[GoofGoof]

There are a lot of ways you can mess with an individual or group without needing to jail or fine them though.

Yeah, for sure. To your point this would be limiting what is considered protected today for individuals as well. There is a push away from the constitution and towards more authoritarian government overreach in the name of public good. Remember this all started to “protect the children”. For those that really believe in that the ends justify the means. As was pointed out earlier the literal verbiage of the constitution only protects citizens from being jailed or fined for speaking out. The rest of the protections are interpretations by the court and those can change.

 

[Vacationeer]

The First Amendment guarantees that you and I can say and believe whatever we like (subject to a few tradition-based exceptions, such as obscenity and "fighting words") without going to jail or being fined. What it ought [original emphasis] to guarantee beyond that is not at all the simple question the Court assumes. The ability to discourage eccentric views through the mild means that have historically been employed, and that the Court has now set its face against, may well be important to social cohesion. To take an uncomfortable example from real life: An organization (I shall call it the White Aryan Supremacist Party, though that was not the organization involved in the actual incident I have in mind) is undoubtedly entitled, under the Constitution, to maintain and propagate racist and antisemitic views. But when the Department of Housing and Urban Development lets out contracts to private security forces to maintain law and order in units of public housing, must it really treat this bidder the same as all others? Or may it determine that the views of this organization are not political views that it wishes to "subsidize" with public funds, nor political views that it wishes to hold up as an exemplar of the law to the residents of public housing?

Each time I read this it still seems like a horrible example from Scalia.

Using an example like Aryan Supreme Party when it comes to a housing security contract - ?

Could the AS Party even meet all of the contract terms? This is what is stopping groups like this from getting government contracts. They can’t abide.

The SC judge using this example almost seems disingenuous imo.

 

[Zorba]

The distinction is jailing or fining. It still upholds that the government cannot throw you in jail for speaking against them like the classic example of a protestor who cannot be jailed for attending a legally organized rally. For corporations there is not really a fear of jailing unless they tried to imprison the CEO or leadership which hasn’t really been a concern. Government retaliation against corporations is usually tied to damaging their ability to make a profit or operate their business. If Freedom of Speech is limited solely to no jail time and no direct fines then all these actions can be retaliation but they are still legal.

That would basically contradict Citizens United and every Bue State could instantly turnaround and punish any corporation that donated to the GOP.

 

[GoofGoof]

That would basically contradict Citizens United and every Bue State could instantly turnaround and punish any corporation that donated to the GOP.

I don’t disagree. I also don’t think the people behind this care. Corporations are evil and woke now and should be punished accordingly. Over 85% of corporations have some form of DEI initiative so eventually they will need to boycott each and every one.

 

[Chi84]

I don’t disagree. I also don’t think the people behind this care. Corporations are evil and woke now and should be punished accordingly. Over 85% of corporations have some form of DEI initiative so eventually they will need to boycott each and every one.

Right. Until they force them to go back in time to the way things used to be. That usually works, doesn’t it?

 

[DCBaker]

Update in the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District vs Walt Disney Parks And Resorts case.

"The court grants hearing time for Friday July 14th at 2:00pm for 1 hour. Hearing shall be
noticed by counsel. All unopposed Motions for Pro Hac Vice are GRANTED."

 

[ParentsOf4]

Checking again…

Is this thread about RCID or corporate DEI initiatives?

Maybe a bit of thread drift?

 

[wdwmagic]

Time to return to main topic, thanks.

 

[Disstevefan1]

Checking again…

Is this thread about RCID or corporate DEI initiatives?

Maybe a bit of thread drift?

View attachment 721489

 

[mkt]

No new filings as of 6:45pm eastern time on Monday.

Have yourself a [good/bad/mediocre/meh] week.

 

[mkt]

No new filings as of 11:11am eastern time on Tuesday.

Don't forget to make a wish.

 

[Disstevefan1]

No new filings as of 11:11am eastern time on Tuesday.

Don't forget to make a wish.

My wish didn't come true. RCID is still gone.

 

[mkt]

My wish didn't come true. RCID is still gone.

Sometimes they take a bit longer.

 

[MisterPenguin]

No new filings as of 11:11am eastern time on Tuesday.

Don't forget to make a wish.

A filing is a wish your barrister makes.

 

[Andrew C]

A filing is a wish your barrister makes.

TM that for a pillow design...

 

[The Mom]

So now we’ve moved from DEI Initiatives at corporations to DEI Initiatives in the Armed Forces?

View attachment 721713

Exactly. Posters have been warned to stay on topic.

 

[mkt]

Exactly. Posters have been warned to stay on topic.

That'd be me.

Not this time though. I've been a good Rob.

Also, no new filings as of 6:37 pm.

Hump day tomorrow. Almost halfway to Friday.

 

[flyakite]

This is an interesting resolution……

NOTICE OF MEETING
YOU WILL PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on June 21 st at 9:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as practicable, the Board of Supervisors of the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District will meet in regular session at 1900 Hotel Plaza Boulevard, Lake Buena Vista, Florida. At that time and in addition to other business on the agenda, the Board of Supervisors will conduct a reading and public hearing on and consider for adoption Resolution No. 644. A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE CENTRAL FLORIDA TOURIST OVERSIGHT DISTRICT ADOPTING A WHISTLEBLOWER POLICY FOR DISTRICT EMPLOYEES. Interested parties may appear at the public meeting and hearing to be heard with respect to the proposed resolutions. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Board of Supervisors with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he or she will need a record of the proceedings, and that, for such purpose, he or she may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based.