As we’ve seen recently, people do sometimes get a little loose when communicating with known parties. I wouldn’t be entirely shocked if something is found and touted as a smoking gun. Given that the text of the bill was released a whole two days before the deals were finalized, it’s hard to imagine it would be much.
No cause is needed to request public records.
They’ll probably be mad and tweet about it.
Or something that they can construe as needing to be litigated thereby validating their existence and spending any monies required and damn the people (Disney) funding the board. Good luck, my money is on Disney legal
I never said or implied there was anything illegal done by Disney or RCID. I’m just saying that the RCID employees and TWDC lawyers that made this happen probably aren’t going to be tripped up by a smoking gun text message or email, when any email the Creek sends out has an incredibly clear disclosure at the bottom of it stating that written communication with the creek is subject to public record.
You’re describing something that isn’t unique. Those disclosures are everywhere on websites and email signatures related to governments in Florida.
Right, Florida calls it "sunshine"
I guess the only violation of the 1st amendment in your universe is if they cut out their tongues and cut off their hands so they can’t speak out again?
Not in my experience. When I was new here, some of my (entirely apolitical) posts were also invisible to others while awaiting moderation. After I got past a certain threshold, the system just accepted my posts automatically.The only auto mod around here is the inability to post naughty words
Except the centuries-long nonexistence of the Kingdom of England.
Disney's 'crime' was disagreeing with a bigoted piece of legislation that has no place in decent society and is actually a work of demagoguery aimed at appeasing on section of the electorate. Disney wasnt being political, they were being moral. And DeSantis is using all this to appear to be a hard man on the bigger stage of the entire US.
Many highlight the First Amendment violation but by setting this up as a contracts dispute where Disney is the defendant, Disney is in a much stronger legal position than if they were the plaintiff in a First Amendment case.
I wonder if this was Disney’s “In Case of Emergency Break Glass” plan they’ve had on the shelf for years in case the state ever decided to mess with RCID.
For some who attend the meeting , it’s walking distance to Disney Springs for nice food options and shopping too ! The World of Disney store is huge!
Does Disney have to be the defendant? The likely argument is probably that the old board, the District, did something there were not allowed to do. Could the state not then sue the District for their conduct? Then your defendant is the District who wouldn’t be putting up much of a defense and instead would be more admitting guilt.
