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

[MandaM]

That is really easy. Disney hasn't been prevented from saying anything, they're still allowed to protest the Parent Rights bill if they so choose. Disney has not lost a single right that is given to every other corporation is Florida over any of their speech, they still have every right every other corporation has in this state, and DeSantis has committed to keeping it that way.

Nope, that’s not how freedom of speech works. The Supreme Court has ruled that punishing or “chilling” protected speech violates the 1st amendment. DeSantis is flagrantly violating the 1st amendment, not protecting it. Do you support freedom of speech or not? If you do, then you can’t support what DeSantis has done.

 

[Notypeo]

Only Disney can sue DeSantis for violating its constitutional rights. Nobody else would have standing, so your point is moot.

In theory, as a very general matter, a shareholder or shareholders could bring a derivative lawsuit on the company’s behalf.

 

[MandaM]

In theory, as a very general matter, a shareholder or shareholders could bring a derivative lawsuit on the company’s behalf.

Yes, good point.

 

[CampbellzSoup]

You could have just said you didn’t understand the first amendment.

Freedom of speech not freedom of consequence.

 

[MandaM]

Freedom of speech not freedom of consequence.

The government imposing consequences for protected speech is literally what the 1st Amendment forbids. How can people not understand what freedom of speech is?

 

[mkt]

Freedom of speech not freedom of consequence.

From the government, it absolutely is. That's what the first amendment is all about.

DeSantis isn't the CEO of a private company, he's a government official.

 

[_caleb]

Freedom of speech not freedom of consequence.

What is this supposed to mean?

 

[flynnibus]

The discussion about CARB began because people were claiming no state allows un-elected board members to have authority over taxation

No, they were talking about the leaders of special districts - not any state agency period. But you took 'board' to mean anything state... and were quickly corrected (all these posts are deleted) but you continue to beat this drum about a state agency that has no relevancy to the topic of special districts.

CARB is tasked to define the model that the state taxes with - they don't have taxing authority of their own. But again, none of this is relevant to the topic nor thread. You just again, saw something that kinda looked the same.. and ran with it as if it were the same.

 

[TP2000]

No, they were talking about the leaders of special districts - not any state agency period. But you took 'board' to mean anything state... and were quickly corrected (all these posts are deleted)...

I'll have to do better at reading deleted posts. My apologies.

CARB is tasked to define the model that the state taxes with - they don't have taxing authority of their own. But again, none of this is relevant to the topic nor thread. You just again, saw something that kinda looked the same.. and ran with it as if it were the same.

But when you fill up your tank the next time in California, will you at least think of me?

CARB Cap-And-Trade Tax: 23 Cents per gallon
CARB Low Carbon Fuel Standard Tax: 18 Cents per gallon

Carbon Credit Costs for California Gasoline & Diesel: A Heads Up for U.S. Suppliers - OPIS, A Dow Jones Company

California’s gasoline prices are influenced by its carbon credit cost initiatives. Learn about cap-and-trade and Low Carbon Fuel Standard programs.

blog.opisnet.com

 

[peter11435]

Freedom of speech not freedom of consequence.

Freedom of speech IS freedom of consequences from the government. If the government imposed consequences for speech, that is a violation of the first amendment. What exactly do you think free speech means?

 

[LSLS]

From across the state there is, most certainly.


Setting aside the fact that any Governor, D or R, would only choose politically aligned people to serve on a board that controls massive taxation and policy in that state...

The CARB board has 14 voting members. 12 of them are appointed directly by the Governor, and two are appointed by the Governor's sidekicks in the legislature. Six of the voting members come from the hundreds of politicians who make up many local AQMD Districts across the state that support CARB goals (there is no end to the layers of bureaucracy in California!), and 8 others are appointed directly by the Governor and/or Speaker of the House.

Even if all six of the CARB members (who were still chosen by the Governor) from AQMD Districts suddenly went rogue and turned into Coal Barons who want to remove catalytic converters from every car, they only have six votes. There's still 8 other votes by CARB board members that were directly chosen by the Governor. But this is not a group of bureaucrats and political cronies that is going to go against the Governor that appointed them. And the Governor did appoint them personally, whether you admit it or not.

Example #2,489 of this concept:
In 2022 the CARB Board voted to ban the sale of all gas-powered cars and trucks in California by 2035. The vote of these 14 Governor-appointed CARB members was unanimous, not a single Board member dissented or went against the grain. The CARB Board of Directors is a group of 14 political appointees who have no diversity of thought or opinion. And the legal ability to tax and spend.

California Bans the Sale of New Gas-Powered Cars by 2035

The California Air Resources Board voted unanimously to phase out the sale of new fossil fuel-burning cars in the largest state in the nation, setting the stage for a wider adoption of electric vehicles.

www.govtech.com

Ok good. So we have arrived at the point that you admit you lied about no representation of the state? And that there are people elected by people of all regions on this board.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Instead, I’d argue that Disney might not yet have legal standing in a First Amendment case. One of the requirements for legal standing is to suffer actual or imminent harm. The law itself does does cause harm. Disney does not have a federal constitutionally protected right to appoint the members of a special district’s board of supervisors. Instead, harm from a First Amendment perspective will occur once the newly seated board members reject a project or request from Disney.

Disney might simply be playing this smartly, waiting for the new board to inflict harm before moving forward with a lawsuit.

Why do you keep making up reasons to justify all of this? You’ve been given information that this is not correct and yet you continue to twist precedent to make claims that are often contradictory to their actual meaning. The harm is not limited to just the board rejecting something. The chilling effect is a harm and has been openly stated. Speech is also protects under the state constitution and the changes that violate it are also all harms.

 

[peter11435]

Has Disney stopped expressing it’s pro LGTBQ+ stance?

That’s not really relevant.

Has the government used its power to punish and/or try to stop Disney from expressing its pro LGTBQ+ stance?

The answer to that question is the only one that matters.

 

[peter11435]

I understand.

What I’m suggesting that a judge like Associate Justice Thomas might view this question differently than a judge like associate Justice Sotomayor.

The point I’ve repeatedly argued is that two judges can look at the same case and walk away with two diametrically opposed rulings based on their personal biases.

Is a mega corporation such as Disney really “chilled” by this law? Are they really scared of expressing themselves, or are they moving forward because, as some news articles have reported, they really don’t see much of a change?

Ultimately, is what DeSantis has done nothing more than a political stunt that will have little to no effect on Disney?

Has Disney continued publicly opposing the “parental rights” bill?

But again that’s irrelevant. If the government fines someone for speech they disagree with and the person continues the “offensive” speech anyway… that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a violation.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I’m claiming that whether Disney has standing in a First Amendment case today depends on whether a judge thinks they have suffered harm at this moment.

A judge such as Sotomayor might say, “of course”.

A judge such a Thomas might view this differently.

These two justices review the exact same cases yet often eviscerate each other in their rulings.

Stated differently, if Disney had to present its case solely to Associate Justice Thomas, do you think Disney would win? Would Thomas say, “OMG Disney, you already have suffered great harm”?

The judge you appear before matters.

The Supreme Court isn’t where standing is determined. That would occur at the District Court level. The Supreme Court has not interfered in the litigation of the Stop WOKE Act and Florida hasn’t even tried to immediately escalate around the District court.

Even very activist judges who go out of their way to make specific rulings don’t tend to just toss things out on standing, because that’s not really a resolution. They’d rather hear the case and give a rule that at least has some temporary effect.

Justice Thomas rejected without hearing Trump’s appeal of the 11th Circuit’s ruling against him (a unanimous decision made most by Trump appointees) in his special master case. Claims of party and personal allegiance are not as strong and neat as you claim. A variety of conservative judges across the federal judiciary have recently shown a willingness to rule against those who are “on their side” and even appointed them.

 

[LSLS]

Honestly, I get where ParentsOf4 is coming from on this (though what I don't know if this is correct or not in the eyes of the law). The idea is that as of right now, nothing has been done to Disney specifically. Everything has been done to the District, which Disney is a part of, but is separate from. So, if say Raymond James speaks out against the bill, and the Govenor takes over the city of Tampa and throws out their elected officials, Raymond James would not have standing to say it's 1st amendment was violated.

NOW, I am far from a lawyer, so I'm not sure what case precedent there is. It's possible they DO have that standing and I don't know. Also, the fact that Disney is the primary landowner in the district makes things different as well. So, I think I summed up the case Parents is making (though correct me if I'm wrong). SO, the question, is there precedence to say that taking action against your representatives constitutes a first amendment violation? Or in other words, is there a case where action was taken against a larger group based on what someone in that group said.

 

[mkt]

A third party cannot successfully sue the state of Florida for what the state did to Disney. A third party would not have legal standing and the case would be thrown out.

Disney shareholders?

 

[lazyboy97o]

We’ve already had cases against the original law dissolving Disney thrown out because of standing.

We’ve already had lawsuits against the “Don’t Say Gay” law thrown out because of standing.

Judge again tosses challenge to Florida's 'Don't Say Gay' bill

For the second time in more than a month, a lawsuit challenging Florida's so-called "don't say gay" legislation that restricts teaching on gender identity and sexual orientation in schools has been dismissed by a federal judge.

www.pbs.org

“In both cases, the judges questioned the legal standing of the plaintiffs, saying they had failed to specifically identify how the law had harmed them.”

It seems obvious that the “Don’t Say Gay” law and the law to dissolve RCID are intended to chill free speech, yet here we are.

But the board denying a Disney project because they don’t like Disney is real and actual harm. No judge is going to throw out a case brought before them on these grounds because of legal standing.

Disney’s chances of winning a lawsuit improve immensely once they can show harm that cannot be brushed aside by a judge.

To be clear, I’m not saying Disney does not have a case right now. I am saying that their case is stronger once the board acts.

The only case I know of regarding the dissolution was the three or so people who claimed it would increase their property taxes. They first brought their case to federal court where it was rightly dismissed as a local tax matter is not a federal issue. I don’t recall if they actually re-filed in state court, but even there I can see the lack of standing due to the limitations on the counties to raise taxes, there being no actual work done to officially raise taxes and the other issues we’ve discussed relating to the validity of the dissolution.

The “Don’t Say Gay” law and the new defamation bill are so insidious because of the way they are specifically crafted to deny people standing. Creating policies designed to avoid crazy lawsuits isn’t actually required by the law, so it creates a disconnect. School districts aren’t reacting to the state, they’re reacting to a potential third party.

Waiting for the board to act does not make a case easier. It makes a case significantly harder and makes fighter more involved and costly. Planning and development bodies already have wide latitude. Here are some simple reasons to deny a project like Beyond Big Thunder Mountain:

• Disturbs wetlands
• Negative impact on the District’s water management plan
• Will further contribute to congestion in neighboring communities
• Insufficient availability of service
• Insufficient emergency access

This isn’t hard. Maybe the Moana ride isn’t approved because it’ll use too much water and contribute to depletion of the aquifer. If the board’s smart and kept their mouth shut those issues get harder to fight. Maybe they remain just as open about their intentions. Either way, that’s two decisions so it means you have two separate court cases you’re now fighting and the outcome of each can be different. And while those cases are being litigated, they can go ahead and deny a third project. Fighting decisions means fighting outcomes. It doesn’t address the root issue and doesn’t stop further action because it’s ultimately a different set of circumstances. The board can keep making retaliatory decisions and they will still be there. There is no mechanism to remove them for abuse of power, there is no three strikes rule where three unconstitutional decisions gets you booted from office.

It also gives the Board the ability to learn and change tactics.
“In the interest of public safety, plan reviews will now take an additional 30 days.”
“That’s quite a coincidence since that ‘woke’ movie just came out.”
“We don’t know about any movies, we’re talking about ensuring building safety.”
How do you fight that happy coincidence? How do you stop similar coincidences?

 

[peter11435]

Iger has stated:

“To the extent that I can work to quiet things down, I’m going to do that. But I think it’s important to put in perspective what some of these subjects are and not just simply brand them political.”

His decision to “quiet things down” may simply what’s best for Disney.

Liberals and conservatives both purchase Disney products. Continuing to be at the forefront of LGBTQ+ rights might be bad for business.

Certainly, there’s a perception by some that recent animated films have suffered at least in part due to a message that’s not what all parents want to expose their small children to.

In order to demonstrate standing at this moment in time, Disney has to demonstrate that any change to their public behavior is driven by the new law, not in response to consumers. Legally, it’s up to Disney to prove they have standing, which means proving they have suffered harm because of the law.

Is this possible to do? Sure. But a lot of this will be adjudicated by a justice who might rule based on what that justice thinks is the real driving force behind any change in Disney behavior.

Again, Disney’s case is stronger once they can point to something more concrete.

Disney does not need to change their public behavior let alone prove why they changed their public behavior in order to have standing in a first amendment case. Just because you don’t stop speaking out doesn’t mean your rights weren’t violated.

 

[GoofGoof]

You said this game would be over now and yet it keeps escalating despite Disney’s “cool headed” response.

What game? What escalation? So far we’ve talk about a lot of ”what ifs” and a lot of possibilities but none of those things has actually happened yet. The new board has done literally nothing so far. When it takes over officially we have no way of knowing what they will actually do. I don’t disagree with you and others that the potential for improper behavior is certainly there and the whole way this went down is still not right, but I’m not sure how the situation is escalating. It certainly could.