How is that a threat? If one of the options presented was to get the legislature to repeal the law then it suggests working with/lobbying efforts. Hardly a threat. And supporting a challenge to the law isn't a threat, either. It's stating a belief that the law is unconstitutional in its current form and that a legal challenge would succeed. Even if you consider that a threat, it's within their Constutional rights to oppose the law and certainly doesn't justify the actions taken by the government to attempt to punish them for exercising their rights.Perhaps you missed where I typed "politically, mind you".
"“Florida’s HB 1557, also known as the ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill, should never have passed and should never have been signed into law. Our goal as a company is for this law to be repealed by the legislature or struck down in the courts, and we remain committed to supporting the national and state organizations working to achieve that. We are dedicated to standing up for the rights and safety of LGBTQ+ members of the Disney family, as well as the LGBTQ+ community in Florida and across the country.”
Statement From The Walt Disney Company On Signing Of Florida Legislation - The Walt Disney Company
The following statement may be attributed to a spokesperson for The Walt Disney Company: “Florida’s HB 1557, also known as the ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill, …Read Morethewaltdisneycompany.com
That is threatening direct action against the State of Florida. It is their "goal" to see that the law is repealed and struck down? WTH?
Waiting out DeSantis doesn’t mean doing nothing, those of us saying to wait out DeSantis are simply saying to fight this in the courts and behind closed doors, not publicly, if DeSantis can’t use it as campaign fodder it becomes a much easier win for Disney.
A legal challenge in court is not behind closed doors.
You really don't get it. People need to learn from the great speakers instead of opening mouth and inserting foot. How something is presented is very often more important than what is presented.
In this case, it doesn't matter one whit how it was phrased. Disney as a corp is allowed to say whatever the hell they want to say about any government official.
Not a Churchill quote:
Regardless, a statement like that would have to be signed off by him.
No. Free speech isn’t limited to eloquent speech. People can say any stupid thing they want in whatever dumb way they want to say it. It doesn’t matter if Chapek also made a bunch of vile comments about state officials. It doesn’t matter. He could have even done it while yelling “Fire!” in a theater and handing out anti-war leaflets.
You added the “animated film” qualifier. I introduced clear facts undercutting your core argument.
But is incredibly slow, boring, and not something either side can amplify or make more interesting as the process drones on for years. They don't control the venue... they don't control the timing... they don't control the presentation. It's a bog they can't make dance like they can their own venues and messages.
Agreed, and I said something similar earlier. It does though not stop it from being talked about. An ongoing challenge though is a reason to keep bringing the subject up. Every speech can include a mention of how Disney is trying to use activist judges to maintain their special treatment and how the state is fighting against such special interests. The whole argument for no action is operating under the assumption that if Disney doesn’t act then nothing will happen, even though this subject has come back up despite Disney not acting.
Actually I didn’t. That was added by the original poster I was discussing this with him. You jumped in mid conversation with your own agenda. You do you I guess.
I agree with all of this. I also think it’s why we won’t see a public compromise now. I do think there’s a good chance this gets delayed whether by the legislature or by the courts. Either way this will be milked until it stops being useful.
I don’t think you have an agenda. That wasn’t directed at you and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with us disagreeing on this topic. There are many things we agree on, doesn’t have to 100%. We can agree to disagree on how much of a conclusion can be drawn by a few films over a very limited period. You are assuming the only reason Disney animated features under performed was this conflict with DeSantis but I think it’s hard to place all of the blame on that. I don’t disagree they didn‘t have their best year, but other Disney movies did fine. If it’s a boycott that’s causing the decline are people really splitting hairs and only boycotting animated films? That to me seems like a stretch. We will see as time goes on.
Why is the past tense better than the present tense? Why is “I’m doing this and will keep doing it” better than “I did this and will do it again”?
