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

[AdventureHasAName]

Uni, Seaworld, Merlin = Cersei in this GiF

Exactly. When your primary competitor is setting itself on fire, your best course of action is to shut up, get out of the way, and watch from the sidelines.

 

[John park hopper]

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

In no way is Florida legislators denying Disney their first amendment right, in no way is the Florida legislature impeding their ability to do business. Tell me how Disney's free speech is being stifled

 

[Chip Chipperson]

If the actions don’t cause the intended party harm then it’s a pretty weak form of retaliation.

But your premise is based on a false assumption. There is harm to Disney. The fact that there may also be harm to taxpayers in Orange and Osceola Counties doesn't negate the harm to Disney - it just means that there's damage being spread around. The fact that it's being done out of retaliation for exercising the right to free speech makes it illegal.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

I agree with your statement 1000%. I want Reedy Creek to stick around because I love the fact that Disney doesn’t have to jump through hoops through local government to accomplish things. I guess I’m just so skeptical these days because I see people stating this is a First Amendment issue and the government is retaliating well I see many people complaining that the second amendment is being infringed punt all the time. I feel like people try to have it both ways often. And who’s right or wrong comes completely down to what side of the political aisle somebody sits on. It’s frustrating and disheartening. I really wish they could be another party called the common sense party but I know that is very unlikely to ever happen.

This has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. If your argument is "2 wrongs make a right" then you don't have a good argument because you're essentially saying that you're okay with losing 1 right because you might also lose another in unrelated situations.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

In no way is Florida legislators denying Disney their first amendment right, in no way is the Florida legislature impeding their ability to do business. Tell me how Disney's free speech is being stifled

They're literally being punished for exercise their right to free speech. That's been admitted to publicly. Not only does that attempt to dissuade Disney from speaking out in the future, it also has the effect of putting other companies on notice that disagreeing with the party currently in power will result in punishment as they see fit.

 

[sullyinMT]

In no way is Florida legislators denying Disney their first amendment right, in no way is the Florida legislature impeding their ability to do business. Tell me how Disney's free speech is being stifled

This move and their open statements about why FL legislators and the governor are making it is retaliation and punishment for political speech. That’s a problem.

 

[The Mom]

Again, stay on topic. Reedy Creek. Not what led up to this, and not how it will have an impact on elections, etc. Just how will it impact WDW, The Disney corporation, the adjacent counties, the state and it's residents, the guests, and the Disney employees.

And please treat other posters with courtesy- even if you think they don't deserve it!


I'm reposting this for posters who have arrived "late to the party."

 

[AdventureHasAName]

HYPOTHETICAL: "Sparkle" is a monthly children's magazine that consists almost entirely of educational cartoon stories about animals. New Jersey loves that Sparkle was created by someone (Jill Johnson) who lives in NJ (born and raised) and most of the cartoon animal stories are set in a fictional town in NJ. Miss Johnson owns 100% of Sparkle, a NJ corporation. To promote Sparkle, New Jersey's state government offers Sparkle a tax break to maintain its office of five people in Newark, New Jersey. Five years later, 100% of Sparkle is purchased by Kevin Kelly. Mr. Kelly is a proud member of the KKK and often wears Klan robes as he walks around the streets of New Jersey. Sparkle immediately begins publishing cartoon animal stories that include LGBTQ characters that are shunned by the other characters. These LGBTQ characters are portrayed as poor, dirty, smelly, dumb, etc. Simultaneously, Sparkle begins publishing editorials at the front of the magazine about how NJ's government is harming "normal" kids by promoting non-binary gender identity. Several state government officials publicly state Sparkle is no longer welcome in New Jersey, including the governor. The New Jersey state legislature votes to remove Sparkle's tax break.

QUESTION: Has New Jersey violated Sparkle's 1st Amendment rights?

The answer to this question is the answer to whether or not Florida is in violation of Disney's free speech rights and whether or not this RCID-dissolution bill is legal.

 

[Dranth]

In no way is Florida legislators denying Disney their first amendment right, in no way is the Florida legislature impeding their ability to do business. Tell me how Disney's free speech is being stifled

I disagree. The first amendment is meant to prevent Government from passing laws to punish or impede speech (as interpreted by the SCOTUS many times) which is what the people who proposed this bill explicit said it was designed to do.

Now, can they get in front of a court and give different reasons it was done to avoid it getting shot down and some judge buy it? Sure and they probably will. It is still wrong.

How is Disney's free speech being stifled? Florida basically said, say anything we don't like and we will find a way to come after you. How is that not trying to silence them?

That is retaliation. This is punishing someone (or a company in this case) for their views. That the punishment may or may not be something that should exist anyway at this point is irrelevant.

 

[Ghost93]

HYPOTHETICAL: "Sparkle" is a monthly children's magazine that consists almost entirely of educational cartoon stories about animals. New Jersey loves that Sparkle was created by someone (Jill Johnson) who lives in NJ (born and raised) and most of the cartoon animal stories are set in a fictional town in NJ. Miss Johnson owns 100% of Sparkle, a NJ corporation. To promote Sparkle, New Jersey's state government offers Sparkle a tax break to maintain its office of five people in Newark, New Jersey. Five years later, 100% of Sparkle is purchased by Kevin Kelly. Mr. Kelly is a proud member of the KKK and often wears Klan robes as he walks around the streets of New Jersey. Sparkle immediately begins publishing cartoon animal stories that include LGBTQ characters that are shunned by the other characters. These LGBTQ characters are portrayed as poor, dirty, smelly, dumb, etc. Simultaneously, Sparkle begins publishing editorials at the front of the magazine about how NJ's government is harming "normal" kids by promoting non-binary gender identity. Several state government officials publicly state Sparkle is no longer welcome in New Jersey, including the governor. The New Jersey state legislature votes to remove Sparkle's tax break.

QUESTION: Has New Jersey violated Sparkle's 1st Amendment rights?

The answer to this question is the answer to whether or not Florida is in violation of Disney's free speech rights and whether or not this RCID-dissolution bill is legal.

Actually I think they would have violated Sparkle's 1st Amendment rights since most of what qualifies as "hate speech" IS protected by the first amendment.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

Actually I think they would have violated Sparkle's 1st Amendment rights since most of what qualifies as "hate speech" IS protected by the first amendment.

So you believe NJ must subsidize the monthly Klan editorials in perpetuity? Sparkle (the now anti-LGBTQ publication) is entitled to NJ state benefits forever?

 

[Married5Times]

The answer to this question is the answer to whether or not Florida is in violation of Disney's free speech rights and whether or not this RCID-dissolution bill is legal.

an overwhelming parallel regarding the legal issue at hand and I foresee this question ultimately addressed and answered by the Supremes in DC

 

[GimpYancIent]

an overwhelming parallel regarding the legal issue at hand and I foresee this question ultimately taken up by the Supremes in DC

While I do see the various legal processes eventually carry this issue to the High Court time lapse wise RCID would have ceased to exist by then. The landscape will look completely different.

 

[flynnibus]

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.

Meh - disney also knows it sill be around longer than desantis

This is the game played in anahiem too.. and there disney is far more aggressive in the campaigns about who is elected

 

[flynnibus]

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?

They can bring scrutiny their way… and be negatively impacted too. But such actions would have to be objectively justified for reasons besides just punishment.

 

[Married5Times]

Now, can they get in front of a court and give different reasons it was done to avoid it getting shot down and some judge buy it? Sure and they probably will. It is still wrong.

you don't get to change reality just because you package it differently. Judges will see through such a false claim


writing "pig" on the side of a horse doesn't make the horse a pig. There are some pig-headed activists that think they can simply repackage and think it changes the substance.

 

[lazyboy97o]

They probably don’t care because they don’t have 28,000 acres that requires the same level of services as a small city.

They still have significant land holdings in the county. Any across the board tax increases will impact them as well.

 

[GimpYancIent]

Meh - disney also knows it sill be around longer than desantis

This is the game played in anahiem too.. and there disney is far more aggressive in the campaigns about who is elected

True. Disney Co. will also be around post B.C. too, thankfully. As for Disney's choices / moves in the Anaheim, simply put, have not worked out particularly well. Hence necessitating the corporate asset migration away from CA. WDW will still look the same and be the same for the guests.

 

[flynnibus]

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.

If this happened in isolation you’d be correct- but it didn’t

 

[flynnibus]

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!

Did you forget these companies are not just ‘entertainment’ to the tens of thousands of people that look to that company as a provider of employment?