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

[Chi84]

Political speech is protected extremely broadly, perhaps moreso than any other form of speech. Lying has been expressly ruled to be covered by the First Amendment in the context of free speech when it comes to politics. That's why there is no such thing as a false advertising charge for political ads. It is, therefore, very difficult to go into court and argue the "motivation" of a politician's actions, even if they have made clear public statements like DeSantis did. Prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he wasn't just lying to appease his base. You can't.

It wouldn't have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt unless the guy was facing criminal charges.

 

[GoofGoof]

Political speech is protected extremely broadly, perhaps moreso than any other form of speech. Lying has been expressly ruled to be covered by the First Amendment in the context of free speech when it comes to politics. That's why there is no such thing as a false advertising charge for political ads. It is, therefore, very difficult to go into court and argue the "motivation" of a politician's actions, even if they have made clear public statements like DeSantis did. Prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he wasn't just lying to appease his base. You can't.

i don’t really think that’s how it works in a court case like this. Sure a politician won’t be charged for saying something like “my inauguration had the largest crowd ever“ even when there is clear evidence to the contrary. Thats the type of political lie typically covered by “free speech”. That’s different than making a threat. In a more extreme example a politician can’t threaten to imprison or assault people who oppose them and then get out of criminal trouble by just saying it was a political lie. At least I’d assume that’s the case.

 

[Chi84]

You have to convince a judge that DeSantis is not making these public statements as part of his campaign strategy to get elected POTUS. You have to convince a judge that when the attorney representing DeSantis in court says the governor is genuinely concerned that RCID gives Disney an unfair advantage over local businesses, and that his real motivation is leveling the playing field (something else that the governor has publicly stated) the governor is lying.

Even those that despise him think this is all part of a political strategy to get elected. As the plaintiff, the burden of proof is on Disney. And nearly everyone here says he's doing this as a political stunt to get elected.

I assume no one reading this thread have a close connection to DeSantis. We don't know what his real motivation is, and what he's just saying to gin up the base.

My opinion is that how a judge would rule will be largely influenced by their political persuasion. In Florida, there are more conservative than liberal judges. The Florida Supreme Court is conservative. The Eleventh Circuit is conservative. The Supreme Court is conservative. Before you bring this to court, be sure that you can demonstrate real harm that's not based on a politician's campaign speech.

What kind of lawsuit are you talking about? Sorry I got behind in the thread.

 

[mkt]

The first time the new board denies a WDW project because they don't like its message. This is demonstrable harm in a First Amendment case.

I think that's what Disney is waiting for.

 

[flynnibus]

That's why there is no such thing as a false advertising charge for political ads. It is, therefore, very difficult to go into court and argue the "motivation" of a politician's actions, even if they have made clear public statements like DeSantis did. Prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he wasn't just lying to appease his base. You can't.

You're confusing topics of campaigning with the execution of their duties. When someone is negotiating (as was the point raised) as their elected role - They are not campaigning. Campaigning and the execution of their duties are very explicitly separated.

It's why politicans still get sued for libel/etc. They can't just throw up an immunity cloak going "I was just trying to motivate my people!" while causing harm in the execution of their role.

The president is a special case because of specific immunities the SITTING president has (prior rulings primarily aimed at ensuring the president isn't bogged down).

 

[mkt]

Looking at the makeup of the board, there appear to be at least two members who are going to be idiots and shoot off their mouths the first chance they get.

I'm only mildly more optimistic. i think the only one that's going to be a thorn in their side is Ziegler.

 

[Chi84]

The first time the new board denies a WDW project because they don't like its message. This is demonstrable harm in a First Amendment case.

Are you saying that if Disney proves harm and motive (per the governor’s statements) he could defend by saying he was lying?

 

[flynnibus]

You have to convince a judge that DeSantis is not making these public statements as part of his campaign strategy to get elected POTUS. You have to convince a judge that when the attorney representing DeSantis in court says the governor is genuinely concerned that RCID gives Disney an unfair advantage over local businesses, and that his real motivation is leveling the playing field (something the governor has publicly stated) the governor is lying.

Yeah, but he's not just saying things - he's doing it - and then telling you why. Even if he's lying, the lie doesn't undo the action. And their testimony about lying or not will be judged, not taken verbatium. It becomes increasingly hard to say "I didn't mean it" when you build a long list of things you actually did, that align with those statements.

 

[mkt]

Are you saying that if Disney proves harm and motive (per the governor’s statements) he could defend by saying he was lying?

I think the only time the governor might say the whole truth is under oath.

 

[Chi84]

Seriously, find some successful lawsuits against politicians for their campaign speech.

We have politicians today who say the most outrageous things, yet they continue to spew forth garbage with immunity.

Lawsuits differ greatly in their elements and burdens of proof. You can’t really compare them that way.

 

[GoofGoof]

He can say one thing in public, while his real motivation is something else. Disney has to prove that DeSantis' real motivation was to harm Disney, that DeSantis was not genuinely interested in leveling the playing field in central Florida, and that DeSantis was not just doing this to raise campaign funds.

The burden is on Disney.

By that logic there could pretty much never be a successful 1st amendment case. A politician can “chill” free speech through threat or action and then just claim they were lying about the reason. What’s the point of guaranteeing free speech if that’s the case?

 

[Chi84]

He can say one thing in public, while his real motivation is something else. Disney has to prove that DeSantis' real motivation was to harm Disney, that DeSantis was not genuinely interested in leveling the playing field in central Florida, and that DeSantis was not just doing this to raise campaign funds.

The burden is on Disney.

Are you sure about all of that?

 

[GoofGoof]

Seriously, find some successful lawsuits against politicians for their campaign speech.

We have politicians today who say the most outrageous things, yet they continue to spew forth garbage with immunity.

Is anything a politician says a “campaign speech”? The statements were not made at a rally or while giving a speech about election or re-election, they were given during interviews or press conferences.

 

[Chi84]

He can say one thing in public, while his real motivation is something else. Disney has to prove that DeSantis' real motivation was to harm Disney, that DeSantis was not genuinely interested in leveling the playing field in central Florida, and that DeSantis was not just doing this to raise campaign funds.

The burden is on Disney.

9.11 Particular Rights—First Amendment—"Citizen" Plaintiff | Model Jury Instructions

www.ce9.uscourts.gov

I haven’t had time to find anything better, but this demonstrates the shifting burden of proof in a first amendment claim. Again, I can’t say how relevant it is but it’s what I found quickly.

 

[Chi84]

As I repeatedly have emphasized, this depends on the types of justices Disney faces along the way. Some will be more inclined to believe Disney. Some will be more inclined to believe DeSantis.

If you are going to face either type, be sure to go in with evidence they cannot choose to ignore.

But burdens of proof and legal precedents actually mean something to judges. I find the views expressed here very jaded. It’s not just who believes whom, although that will come into play.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Seriously, find some successful lawsuits against politicians for their campaign speech.

We have politicians today who say the most outrageous things, yet they continue to spew forth garbage with immunity.

You can’t just sue a politicians or anyone for the mere act of lying. Most politicians don’t employ the SBF method of constantly talking about engaging in illegal activity.

Court proceedings are not something to take lightly. Lying to a court is illegal. Remember not that long ago when Trump was claiming he declassified all of the marked documents found at Mar-A-Lago? That argument was all over TV but it never appeared in any of the legal filings because none of Trump’s lawyers were willing to risk abetting or committing perjury with such a specious argument.

While the burden of proof rests with the plaintiff, that burden is not something that must be born independently. Florida has extensive open records laws. Filing suit can open up tools like discovery and depositions. A politician might have no issue lying to the public, but lying to a court is a very different game. And while someone like the governor might be able to get by with some protections, that’s not going to be the case for people like legislative staffers. So any claim that it was just campaign speech needs to be rather air tight with no contradicting witnesses or documents.

 

[Nubs70]

Lawsuits differ greatly in their elements and burdens of proof. You can’t really compare them that way.

A lawsuit, in this case, would be a civil action which only requires a preponderance of evidence no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Either a jury of 50% +1 or the opinion of a finder of fact.

 

[hopemax]

Don't take "campaign speech" literally. In this context, it covers a boarder range, pretty much anything a politician says in public.

How about their non-public statements? Communication with Disney directly? One thing we’ve learned about other recent topics that are going through various stages of legal scrutiny is that the people involved did actually write their clear intent down and sent it around.

 

[Tom P.]

It wouldn't have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt unless the guy was facing criminal charges.

Sorry, you're correct. That was the wrong language. The standard would be "preponderance of the evidence." In the case of political speech, again, I think that would he a high bar to clear.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

Yeah, but he's not just saying things - he's doing it - and then telling you why. Even if he's lying, the lie doesn't undo the action. And their testimony about lying or not will be judged, not taken verbatium. It becomes increasingly hard to say "I didn't mean it" when you build a long list of things you actually did, that align with those statements.

Also, "I was just saying that to rally my base," would only be a valid excuse if Disney was in on it - which would obviously negate any need for a lawsuit anyway. Otherwise, the lie has the same chilling effect as if it was the truth and that's all that matters.