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

[el_super]

My concern here is what message this presumed capitulation sends.

I just don't see it as egregious as it's being made out here. Corporations don't have a right to run their own governments. If it reaches a point where Disney is told they are not allowed to put X property into their parks or offer Y inclusion program to CMs, it might become an issue.

 

[peter11435]

Your first line is what makes the argument about legislative intent difficult to pursue on first amendment grounds. Personal thoughts are irrelevant to any legal challenge. If the opinion was entered on the record during debate of the law then maybe it could be considered, but the legislative body is made up if multiple individuals each possibly with differing lines of thought on the law.

Arm chair lawyering is easy. Anyone can do it. Disney’s expensive lawyers clearly had hesitation in pursuing any action to challenge this.

Except they did express that opinion in debate on the subject.

 

[monothingie]

Except they did express that opinion in debate on the subject.

Did every single one who voted to approve say the exact same thing? It takes more than 1 to pass a law. More importantly where in the law did it say that it was particularly targeting TWDC for their actions? Now you’re getting into the aspect of analyzing the murky legal implications of people’s thoughts and reasoning.

 

[flynnibus]

Personal thoughts are irrelevant to any legal challenge

Nonsense - the simple fact it has the EFFECT of chilling protected speech can make it a 1a violation. Intent isn't a necessity. You'd argue intent in proving it's retaliation - which is only one, not the only, avenue for defining a 1a violation.

Besides this argument is so tired - the clowns went on about it forever in front of the cameras and press.. and those against it DID say it would have this impact in debate. So no one can cry 'oh, we didn't know...' or 'thats not what we meant'.

There is direct, intentional change being made here. That is undeniable. The sponsors of the bill, and the gov have repeated said they are intentionally targeting Disney's position and the situation that RCID enables. The acts, methods, and targeting all along are undeniable. You wanna say this is all just happy circumstance it's happening now? Ok.. you stick with that defense.

 

[peter11435]

Did every single one who voted to approve say the exact same thing? It takes more than 1 to pass a law.

No, but the bill sponsor; countless others; and the governor definitely did.

 

[flynnibus]

Did every single one who voted to approve say the exact same thing? It takes more than 1 to pass a law.

The state is the one who would be named in a lawsuit - it doesn't matter if some did or didn't act in that faith. The result is what would be weighed.

 

[rio]

Did every single one who voted to approve say the exact same thing? It takes more than 1 to pass a law. More importantly where in the law did it say that it was particularly targeting TWDC for their actions? Now you’re getting into the aspect of analyzing the murky legal implications of people’s thoughts and reasoning.

So the goalposts are now 10 yards away instead of 5. Got it

 

[monothingie]

No, but the bill sponsor; countless others; and they governor definitely did.

The state is the one who would be named in a lawsuit - it doesn't matter if some did or didn't act in that faith. The result is what would be weighed.

The executive branch has no formal role in drafting the law.

What if the majority of affirmative votes cited in testimony under oath that their motivation for passing the law was for different reason than you’re positing.

Non of you know the answer to this. You can’t argue that the state acted to violate any 1A rights when the law does not specifically target Disney by name and you are unaware of the legislative intentions of the affirmative votes.

Again it appears expensive Disney lawyers have advised their clients to negotiate a favorable solution in the crafting of this bill so that all parties can save face, rather than fight a big expense and public case whose outcome is uncertain.

 

[Notypeo]

They didn’t need to change votes. The state being able to just change a locally elected government into an appointed one goes against several aspects of the state constitution. Any city or even county that goes against the state can now have its charter amended or be consumed by a special district to remove elected officials from local decision making.

To be clear, I meant that Disney didn’t think they could change the votes in the Legislature, and that this was the best they could get. I also that there are other avenues for challenging this, although they are steep climbs as others have mentioned.

 

[lazyboy97o]

The executive branch has no formal role in drafting the law.

What if the majority of affirmative votes cited in testimony under oath that their motivation for passing the law was for different reason than you’re positing.

Non of you know the answer to this. You can’t argue that the state acted to violate any 1A rights when the law specifically target Disney by name and you are unaware of the legislative intentions of the affirmative votes.

Again it appears expensive Disney lawyers have advised their clients to negotiate as favorable a solution in the crafting of this bill so that all parties can save face, rather than fight a big expense and public case whose outcome is uncertain.

It’s amazing how nobody has ever mentioned any of these other motivations. Even you can’t come up with a reason and instead can only whine that people are mentioning facts you don’t like.

 

[peter11435]

Non of you know the answer to this. You can’t argue that the state acted to violate any 1A rights when the law does not specifically target Disney by name and you are unaware of the legislative intentions of the affirmative votes.

There’s a lot of issues with this statement

 

[monothingie]

There’s a lot of issues with this statement

Please, I’d be happy to hear your expert legal opinion.

 

[LittleBuford]

Again it appears expensive Disney lawyers have advised their clients to negotiate as favorable a solution in the crafting of this bill so that all parties can save face, rather than fight a big expense and public case whose outcome is uncertain.

In my view at least, Disney hasn't saved face at all. It looks abject and defeated.

 

[peter11435]

It’s amazing how nobody has ever mentioned any of these other motivations. Even you can’t come up with a reason and instead can only whine that people are mentioning facts you don’t like.

Apparently we shouldn’t believe their intent that they stated multiple times on their twitters, in the media, and on the floor in debate. We should instead believe and accept that it was some other unsaid line of reasoning they kept hidden while choosing to lie and use an illegal/unconstitutional angle publicly.

 

[peter11435]

Please, I’d be happy to hear your expert legal opinion.

Reread the quoted text. Fix the factual errors and we can go from there.

 

[MisterPenguin]

so will it take longer to build attractions now?

Depends how much the newly appointed district board's daughters love Encanto.

 

[peter11435]

And if you want to go after them in the court of public opinion, that’s sufficient to make a political case against their reelection.

It does not mean squat if a court of law.

So you honestly think that statements made on the floor in debate on the bill do not mean squat in a court of law?

 

[flynnibus]

Non of you know the answer to this. You can’t argue that the state acted to violate any 1A rights when the law does not specifically target Disney by name and you are unaware of the legislative intentions of the affirmative votes.

Sorry - this defense has been destroyed so many times in past by the courts. If you actually want to know something about this, there is lots of discussion on this previously in the thread.

And if you don't believe anyone Google "chilling speech"

 

[monothingie]

Where did I say that? You’re the one claiming there were other reasons without evidence. You are making things up and claiming them as true. You haven’t even provided the precedent test that requires direct affirmation from all legislators.

I don’t have to come up with other reasons. You’re the one who’s challenging the intention of the people who voted in favor of the bill.

You prove that every single one of them all did it get back at Disney.

 

[MisterPenguin]

I maintained my neutrality regarding the original Florida parents right bill that caused all of this. There’s no need for neutrality regarding the current Reedy Creek bill. Quite frankly being supportive or neutral regarding the states current actions is dangerous.