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

Spokker

Spokker

New Member
MagicHappens1971 said:
The Governor and his cronies have explicitly stated they planned to remove RCID as retaliation for what Disney said. They quite literally are being punished for exercising their first amendment rights. Dissolving RCID is a disadvantage to the taxpayers of Florida, more specifically Osceola/Orange county.

Dissolving all special districts would have been completely different, they purposely chose RCID to punish Disney.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately I cannot effectively argue my position as the word filter/automod set up on this discussion forum is way too strict. I thought it would be different from Reddit but everywhere is pretty much the same now.



Take care, everyone. Sadly there are few places to really discuss issues on the Internet anymore.
 
Figgy1

Figgy1

Premium Member
Spokker said:
Unfortunately I cannot effectively argue my position as the word filter/automod set up on this discussion forum is way too strict. I thought it would be different from Reddit but everywhere is pretty much the same now.



Take care, everyone. Sadly there are few places to really discuss issues on the Internet anymore.
Click to expand...

The only auto mod around here is the inability to post naughty words

Terms and rules

You must agree to these terms and rules before using the site.
forums.wdwmagic.com forums.wdwmagic.com
 
AugieJ

AugieJ

Member
Spokker said:
Unfortunately I cannot effectively argue my position as the word filter/automod set up on this discussion forum is way too strict. I thought it would be different from Reddit but everywhere is pretty much the same now.



Take care, everyone. Sadly there are few places to really discuss issues on the Internet anymore.
Click to expand...

I have seldom posted here but have been a daily reader for 7 years...

Can't help but to speak here....

All the items you discussed in your censored post do not legislate against a singular company. That is the fallacy of "the other side has done this".

While examples might occur, nothing you tried to site above is similar to the explicit retaliation to Disney that DeSantis stated on numerous occasions.
 
Riviera Rita

Riviera Rita

Well-Known Member
Spokker said:
Unfortunately I cannot effectively argue my position as the word filter/automod set up on this discussion forum is way too strict. I thought it would be different from Reddit but everywhere is pretty much the same now.



Take care, everyone. Sadly there are few places to really discuss issues on the Internet anyanymore.
Click to expand...

Enough already, you need to save your energy for complaining about what is currently happening in New York and your position on that.
 
GladToBeHear

GladToBeHear

Well-Known Member
A lot of us don't seem to understand the first amendment. Disney's freedom of speech was not violated. The First Amendment simply blocks federal and state governments from abridging or preventing expression. It does not protect anyone from the whims of the political (or social) systems in which they reside. The consequences of their speech still adhere to the speakers. Right or wrong, we see states do this all the time. I don't want to speak for @Spokker, but I assume this is one of his points.

You can disagree with the actions the Florida governor/legislature are taking against Disney -- I'm personally still on the fence about it myself -- but let's stop using the first amendment argument.
 
MagicHappens1971

MagicHappens1971

Well-Known Member
GladToBeHear said:
A lot of us don't seem to understand the first amendment. Disney's freedom of speech was not violated. The First Amendment simply blocks federal and state governments from abridging or preventing expression. It does not protect anyone from the whims of the political (or social) systems in which they reside. The consequences of their speech still adhere to the speakers. Right or wrong, we see states do this all the time. I don't want to speak for @Spokker, but I assume this is one of his points.

You can disagree with the actions the Florida governor/legislature are taking against Disney -- I'm personally still on the fence about it myself -- but let's stop using the first amendment argument.
Click to expand...
That's your choice to believe it. But it's not true. The FL legislature/gov violated Disney's first amendment rights. Even if the argument could be said that they didn't, they have repetitively and continually stated on the record that they attacked RCID to punish Disney for speaking out against the Don't Say Gay bill.
 
peter11435

peter11435

Well-Known Member
GladToBeHear said:
A lot of us don't seem to understand the first amendment. Disney's freedom of speech was not violated. The First Amendment simply blocks federal and state governments from abridging or preventing expression. It does not protect anyone from the whims of the political (or social) systems in which they reside. The consequences of their speech still adhere to the speakers. Right or wrong, we see states do this all the time. I don't want to speak for @Spokker, but I assume this is one of his points.

You can disagree with the actions the Florida governor/legislature are taking against Disney -- I'm personally still on the fence about it myself -- but let's stop using the first amendment argument.
Click to expand...
You’re right about one thing. Some us do not understand the first amendment. Your post here clearly shows that you do not understand the first amendment.
 
GladToBeHear

GladToBeHear

Well-Known Member
MagicHappens1971 said:
That's your choice to believe it. But it's not true. The FL legislature/gov violated Disney's first amendment rights. Even if the argument could be said that they didn't, they have repetitively and continually stated on the record that they attacked RCID to punish Disney for speaking out against the Don't Say Gay bill.
Click to expand...
Attacked/retaliated? Yes. Violated their first amendment rights? No.
 
Dranth

Dranth

Well-Known Member
GladToBeHear said:
A lot of us don't seem to understand the first amendment. Disney's freedom of speech was not violated. The First Amendment simply blocks federal and state governments from abridging or preventing expression. It does not protect anyone from the whims of the political (or social) systems in which they reside. The consequences of their speech still adhere to the speakers. Right or wrong, we see states do this all the time. I don't want to speak for @Spokker, but I assume this is one of his points.

You can disagree with the actions the Florida governor/legislature are taking against Disney -- I'm personally still on the fence about it myself -- but let's stop using the first amendment argument.
Click to expand...
You don't consider the state removing your right to representation in a special tax district you volunteered to be a part of because they don't like that you spoke up on a political issue abridging or preventing expression? Florida lawmakers have gone out of their way to tell anyone with a TV camera how this was done to ensure that Disney no longer speaks up, or expresses themselves so how would it not apply in this case?
 
AugieJ

AugieJ

Member
GladToBeHear said:
A lot of us don't seem to understand the first amendment. Disney's freedom of speech was not violated. The First Amendment simply blocks federal and state governments from abridging or preventing expression. It does not protect anyone from the whims of the political (or social) systems in which they reside. The consequences of their speech still adhere to the speakers. Right or wrong, we see states do this all the time. I don't want to speak for @Spokker, but I assume this is one of his points.

You can disagree with the actions the Florida governor/legislature are taking against Disney -- I'm personally still on the fence about it myself -- but let's stop using the first amendment argument.
Click to expand...

You reference "states do this all the time"

Can you reference a specific example in which a state made legislative changes to target one specific company?
 
lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
GladToBeHear said:
A lot of us don't seem to understand the first amendment. Disney's freedom of speech was not violated. The First Amendment simply blocks federal and state governments from abridging or preventing expression. It does not protect anyone from the whims of the political (or social) systems in which they reside. The consequences of their speech still adhere to the speakers. Right or wrong, we see states do this all the time. I don't want to speak for @Spokker, but I assume this is one of his points.

You can disagree with the actions the Florida governor/legislature are taking against Disney -- I'm personally still on the fence about it myself -- but let's stop using the first amendment argument.
Click to expand...
As stated, you are wrong. The government imposing consequences for speech is prohibited. That’s not even close to one of the few, narrow exceptions to freedom of speech.
 
G

GimpYancIent

Well-Known Member
You know this thread provides loads of material to add to and update this:
1680217422732.png
 
GoofGoof

GoofGoof

Premium Member
ParentsOf4 said:
Serious legal question.

Since a Chapter 163 Development Agreement is based on a Florida statute, can't the Florida state legislature undo any agreement created by RCID by passing an ex post facto law?

For example, something along the lines of:

"Notwithstanding s. 163.3202, any independent special district established by a special act prior to the date of ratification of the Florida Constitution on November 5, 1968, shall not enter into a developer's agreement until reestablished, re-ratified, or otherwise reconstituted by a special act or general law after November 5, 27 1968."

Although U.S. Constitution (Article 1, Section 10, clause 1) prohibits states from passing ex post facto laws, the Supreme Court ruled in Calder v. Bull that this only applies to criminal matters.
Click to expand...
I’m no lawyer but when is enough enough with this nonsense. So by this logic any Governor (who also controls the legislature) can undo any contract simply by passing a nonsense law. Does anyone else see a big problem with this? I know some see it as a way for “their guy” to win but there are many other states with “the other side’s guy“ in charge. If we allow politicians to arbitrarily void any contract they see fit it’s a terrible precedent, massively anti-business and just plain short sighted. People need to wake up and realize Ron’s dreams ain’t worth destroying the economy and our way of doing business. He tried….he got outsmarted (twice now on this issue)….time to move on.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom