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

[Chi84]

Isn't that the point of democracy? That the people get to choose? If you purposefully eliminate certain outcomes, do the people really have a democracy?

In our system, the people get to vote for their leaders and give them the authority to make laws and enforce them.

But please do some reading on the Constitution and the first 10 amendments, known as the Bill of Rights. These detail certain rights that the government is not authorized to make laws against or punish people for exercising - freedom of speech is the first of those rights. Others include the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures and the right not to incriminate oneself. All of these rights are subject to certain limitations based on a long history of precedent ("You can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater).

These rights, when legally exercised, are protected against government action - both federal and (through the 14th amendment) state. They are meant to serve as limitations on government excesses. That's why comparisons to how businesses or other individuals respond to others' exercise of speech are not valid.

 

[danlb_2000]

Then why do the other demographics in Florida keep helping him get elected?





Isn't that the point of democracy? That the people get to choose? If you purposefully eliminate certain outcomes, do the people really have a democracy?

Unless those things violate people's constitutional rights.

 

[el_super]

In our system, the people get to vote for their leaders and give them the authority to make laws and enforce them.

But please do some reading on the Constitution and the first 10 amendments, known as the Bill of Rights.

Does the constitution permit the repeal of the bill of rights?

 

[danlb_2000]

Does the constitution permit the repeal of the bill of rights?

Any part of the constitution can be changed if it goes through the prescribed amendment process.

 

[Chi84]

Does the constitution permit the repeal of the bill of rights?

It permits amendments under defined circumstances. I'm sorry, I responded because I thought you were posting in good faith.

 

[mmascari]

I don’t think they will. If they’re not up to fight for the district, clearly signaled that they’ll just do as they are told. Why would they invite more retribution?

I think the big questions are how will this impact the content Disney releases.

On the one hand, they could release only bland content and try not to offend anyone. That is likely to create some workforce issues. It may also impact profits from that content, as bland content isn't exactly a huge seller.

On the other hand, they could release content the employees want to release, and that has clearly made them profits in the past (more or less), and risk government retaliation on other unrelated parts of their business.

That looks like a lose-lose to me. Eventually, they'll be forced to have one of those fights. They may be trying to run out the clock sort of. Trying to avoid both fights until one of them becomes easier to overcome. That still feels like a loss in the meantime. We'll see how it plays out and if the stalling for time action works or not. It's certainly not a bold strategy, but does sound like a mostly risk adverse plan. Of course, risk adverse plans are typically about minimizing loss and not growing.

 

[Chi84]

Yeah. Good faith. So anyway, you think that corporations should have a bigger role in politics and government?

It doesn't matter what I think personally. The law as currently interpreted by the Supreme Court essentially gives corporations the same right to political free speech as individuals. It's not up to me to decide whether or not they exercise that right; it's up to the corporations.

If people don't like the way corporations are participating in politics, they have every right to withhold their patronage of that business. People who don't like what Disney said in opposition to a controversial law have the right not to go to their movies or parks, buy their merchandise, etc. Other private businesses that disagree with Disney have the right not to do business with them.

But our constitution does not allow the government to punish a business for political free speech, no matter how many people agree with the government's actions.

 

[el_super]

But our constitution does not allow the government to punish a business for political free speech, no matter how many people agree with the government's actions.

So what recourse does the constitution give the people when the govnerment decides to ignore the constitution?

That's the wrong question. It doesn't matter if the legal system would be able to prevent it -- the question is should the 49% even have an avenue to attempt to prevent it. Your position suggests they should just sit back and accept being murdered because they were outvoted.

So specifically, does Disney/Reedy Creek have an avenue to remedy whatever legal torts have been foisted upon them?

 

[BringMeTheHoriz]

It doesn't matter what I think personally. The law as currently interpreted by the Supreme Court essentially gives corporations the same right to political free speech as individuals. It's not up to me to decide whether or not they exercise that right; it's up to the corporations.

If people don't like the way corporations are participating in politics, they have every right to withhold their patronage of that business. People who don't like what Disney said in opposition to a controversial law have the right not to go to their movies or parks, buy their merchandise, etc. Other private businesses that disagree with Disney have the right not to do business with them.

But our constitution does not allow the government to punish a business for political free speech, no matter how many people agree with the government's actions.

Exactly. And I can’t help but see the irony in the source of that case and the lines on which it was ruled in relation to how Disney was subsequently treated in voicing free speech.

 

[UNCgolf]

So specifically, does Disney/Reedy Creek have an avenue to remedy whatever legal torts have been foisted upon them?

I can't decide if you're doing this intentionally or you're actually this obtuse, but this is a completely different discussion than the one you started. It's not even moving the goalposts; it's moving to a separate stadium.

 

[Chi84]

So what recourse does the constitution give the people when the govnerment decides to ignore the constitution?

Section 1983 of the United States Code allows a citizen to bring an action against the government based on a violation of civil rights.

 

[el_super]

I can't decide if you're doing this intentionally or you're actually this obtuse, but this is a completely different discussion than the one you started. It's not even moving the goalposts; it's moving to a separate stadium.

So again you refuse to answer the questions. Who would have guessed that they would be THAT difficult for people who have already spent days arguing this.

I'll type it slower for you:

The power of the government is granted thru the consent of the governed.
The people have granted the government the ability to setup systems to ensure that people are not unduly harmed by said government.
So when a harm is enacted upon someone, or some corporatation by the government, their recourse is to fight thru the people/legal system.

Disney is choosing not to do that, for multiple reasons. Disney choosing not to fight back, is not a sign that the system is broken.

The system is still working as intended.

 

[Chi84]

So again you refuse to answer the questions. Who would have guessed that they would be THAT difficult for people who have already spent days arguing this.

I'll type it slower for you:

The power of the government is granted thru the consent of the governed.
The people have granted the government the ability to setup systems to ensure that people are not unduly harmed by said government.
So when a harm is enacted upon someone, or some corporatation by the government, their recourse is to fight thru the people/legal system.

Disney is choosing not to do that, for multiple reasons. Disney choosing not to fight back, is not a sign that the system is broken.

The system is still working as intended.

People (and corporations) have many reasons not to pursue legal avenues of recourse. Heck, there are many victims of violent crime who decide not to prosecute for reasons personal to them. That doesn't make the crime okay and it sure doesn't mean the system is working as intended.

At the end of the day, no one actually knows why Disney is not filing a legal challenge. It could be they see this as an ineffective political ploy and don't want to continue to give the governor headlines.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Does the constitution permit the repeal of the bill of rights?

Yes, this is why the Bill of Rights was argued against in The Federalist Papers. They’re supposed to be human rights, not rights provided by a government. Everyone, everywhere always has a right to thing like freedom of speech, a piece of paper never changes that.

 

[jinx8402]

So again you refuse to answer the questions. Who would have guessed that they would be THAT difficult for people who have already spent days arguing this.

I'll type it slower for you:

The power of the government is granted thru the consent of the governed.
The people have granted the government the ability to setup systems to ensure that people are not unduly harmed by said government.
So when a harm is enacted upon someone, or some corporatation by the government, their recourse is to fight thru the people/legal system.

Disney is choosing not to do that, for multiple reasons. Disney choosing not to fight back, is not a sign that the system is broken.

The system is still working as intended.

So if a domestic violence victim chooses not to pursue charges against the abuser for fear of retribution the system is working and the abuser is in the right?

 

[lazyboy97o]

I think the big questions are how will this impact the content Disney releases.

On the one hand, they could release only bland content and try not to offend anyone. That is likely to create some workforce issues. It may also impact profits from that content, as bland content isn't exactly a huge seller.

On the other hand, they could release content the employees want to release, and that has clearly made them profits in the past (more or less), and risk government retaliation on other unrelated parts of their business.

That looks like a lose-lose to me. Eventually, they'll be forced to have one of those fights. They may be trying to run out the clock sort of. Trying to avoid both fights until one of them becomes easier to overcome. That still feels like a loss in the meantime. We'll see how it plays out and if the stalling for time action works or not. It's certainly not a bold strategy, but does sound like a mostly risk adverse plan. Of course, risk adverse plans are typically about minimizing loss and not growing.

Exactly. I made this now deleted point earlier. If the state is okay going after “inappropriate” stage shows, why would they have any qualms about also going after “inappropriate” moving picture shows? What about streaming services that distribute “inappropriate” movies to children?

 

[Disstevefan1]

RCID is gone but this thread lives on

 

[el_super]

So if a domestic violence victim chooses not to pursue charges against the abuser for fear of retribution the system is working and the abuser is in the right?

Slightly different points here, but to focus on the important one: is the system working? Yes.

Let's say that there are issues with domestic violence victims being silenced due to fear of retribution, and the people advocate for a law that mandates corporations provide literature, documentation and avenues for reporting domestic violence at work and on company time, so that victims can be in a safe familiar space when reporting issues.

Should a company have a right to sue to prevent that law from impacting them? Should a company exercise that right?

 

[mmascari]

Exactly. I made this now deleted point earlier.

I had some earlier posts showing it too. A few examples using the World Drive project. Moderation is hard and thankless. When the delete button comes out, some stuff that I didn't think was off-topic gets caught up in it. It happens. No sour grapes from me.

When the thread goes off the rails, it tends to go way off the rails. Thankless job to get us back on track.

 

[danlb_2000]

What would be the basis for the lawsuit?

That companies have the right to control how their resources are used by employees?