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

[DonniePeverley]

So what's going to happen to the Yeti ?

 

[networkpro]

So what's going to happen to the Yeti ?

Jury Duty

 

[scottieRoss]

If Disney finds the situation untennable, they have recourse.
They would sue the State in Federal Court. The State does not have souvereign immunity in cases of violations of Constitutional rights so they can not escape that way. They can sue for damages (none yet) and request an injunction prohibiting the state from enforcing the section of the new law that changed the selection of the Board. Remember, despite everyone repeating it, they did not select the Board, they voted for the board consisting of landowners in the District. They voted at the rate of 1 vote per acre owned.
The Cause of Action would be the State of Florida and Ron Desantis in his official capacity along with the State Legistlature have violated their First Amendment rights by stifling their right to free speech under the First Amendment along with the Due Process clause for taking action in retribution to their exercise of their First Amendment rights. And violation of the Due Process clause by removing their right to vote for their local government.

 

[Minthorne]

So what's going to happen to the Yeti ?

As long as it toes the line, doesn’t speak up, and avoids any inappropriate attire - it will be left alone.

But if it offers one opinion on any of this it will be deemed in violation of The Code and promptly covered by a tarp. Held in place by a million hair ties.

 

[Tom P.]

Until the first evidence that there was any private negotiating happening and the same demands come up... then it's clear that it's not just show, but part of the program.

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.

 

[sedati]

Since Disney is being accused of trying to teach sex to children can they at least bring back this:

 

[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.