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

[Brian]

Even here your gross groomer comment betrays the reality that Disney was already being targeted for their “wokeness”. Their perfectly legal actions were not in any way the sort of equivalency that has repeatedly been attempted.

Can you point to a specific legislative or executive action which DeSantis targeted at Disney specifically (like in the case of RCID), prior to Chapek's statement against the "legislation that shall not be named?"

I can't, but I can point out a legislative carveout which DeSantis signed off on that favored Disney. Take for example:

Florida bill would restrict social media platforms from banning politicians

Daily fines could be as high as $250,000 per day

www.theverge.com

As to the groomer nonsense, let's not relitigate that. I bring it up merely as an example of something which DeSantis could legally have done to take a jab back at Disney, make the base laugh, and move on, thus avoiding the mess that ultimately occurred instead.

 

[Figgy1]

All @JohnD was doing is correcting the record. Another member claimed that "this was started by Ron," when in fact, DeSantis didn't just wake up one morning and say "you know what, I think it's time to go screw over the #1 tourism destination in my state, after nearly 55 years of status quo."

In reality, Disney threw the first punch. This is so blatantly obvious that even Iger conceded that. DeSantis punched back, albeit in a near-textbook example of chilling free speech, but that doesn't change the fact that Disney threw the first punch. Would I have liked to see DeSantis just say "Ok, groomers" to Disney and move on? Yes. Unfortunately, things escalated quickly and both he and Disney have gotten wounded in this battle.

As always, two things can be true at once: Disney started it, and DeSantis acted unconstitutionally.

That is one of the most disgusting things posted today, sadly not the only disgusting post but top 3

 

[Chi84]

Can you point to a specific legislative or executive action which DeSantis targeted at Disney specifically (like in the case of RCID), prior to Chapek's statement against the "legislation that shall not be named?"

I can't, but I can point out a legislative carveout which DeSantis signed off on that favored Disney. Take for example:

Florida bill would restrict social media platforms from banning politicians

Daily fines could be as high as $250,000 per day

www.theverge.com

As to the groomer nonsense, let's not relitigate that. I bring it up merely as an example of something which DeSantis could legally have done to take a jab back at Disney, make the base laugh, and move on, thus avoiding the mess that ultimately occurred instead.

No, he targeted Disney after and because of Disney’s opposition to the legislation. No one can retaliate against someone for speaking unless that person first speaks.

 

[lazyboy97o]

As to the groomer nonsense, let's not relitigate that. I bring it up merely as an example of something which DeSantis could legally have done to take a jab back at Disney, make the base laugh, and move on, thus avoiding the mess that ultimately occurred instead.

You mean make you laugh? We’re not relitigating anything. You’re the one the one who decided to use that term as an example of what you would have preferred. Own it.

 

[lazyboy97o]

No, he targeted Disney after and because of Disney’s opposition to the legislation. No one can retaliate against someone for speaking unless that person first speaks.

Disney was already being targeted by commentators for their “wokeness”. There was even all the talk about how Chapek was going to be this big conservative hero who was going to radically change Disney’s content. That’s why the eventual legislative targeting, started by legislators, was not just appealing, but also viable, because Disney was already being targeted by their base.

 

[Chi84]

You mean make you laugh? We’re not relitigating anything. You’re the one the one who decided to use that term as an example of what you would have preferred. Own it.

I’m really not understanding the point of what people are saying. We have freedom of religion in this country, which means we can go to church and worship without being harassed or arrested by the government.

It seems people here would say yes, the arrest was unconstitutional, but it wouldn’t have happened unless those people went to church and practiced a religion that offended the governor.

 

[Brian]

You mean make you laugh? We’re not relitigating anything. You’re the one the one who decided to use that term as an example of what you would have preferred. Own it.

Yes, I would have preferred that DeSantis make a quip like that instead of chilling the speech of the company and setting a precedent for similar retaliatory actions in Florida or elsewhere, including "blue" states. This is all despite the fact that the antecedent was speech I didn't care for in the first place.

It's like asking if I'd prefer the U.S. send Russia a strongly worded letter with a joke about Russian nesting dolls in it, or drop a nuke on Moscow.

 

[Brian]

I’m really not understanding the point of what people are saying. We have freedom of religion in this country, which means we can go to church and worship without being harassed or arrested by the government.

It seems people here would say yes, the arrest was unconstitutional, but it wouldn’t have happened unless those people went to church and practiced a religion that offended the governor.

Am I correct in my understanding that you are claiming that Disney didn't "fire the first shot" because they were free to fire said "shot" in the first place? If so, that's a valid and understandable point. I'm merely pointing out that DeSantis didn't just decide out of nowhere to shoot at Disney, wrong as his "shot" may have been. There was a clear antecedent.

 

[Chi84]

Am I correct in my understanding that you are claiming that Disney didn't "fire the first shot" because they were free to fire said "shot" in the first place? If so, that's a valid and understandable point. I'm merely pointing out that DeSantis didn't just decide out of nowhere to shoot at Disney, wrong as his "shot" may have been. There was a clear antecedent.

Yes. Disney didn’t fire a shot. It said something it had every right to say. I agree that the governor did not decide out of nowhere to punish Disney. The governor decided that only because Disney exercised its constitutional right to oppose a law it didn’t agree with.

 

[flynnibus]

All @JohnD was doing is correcting the record. Another member claimed that "this was started by Ron," when in fact, DeSantis didn't just wake up one morning and say "you know what, I think it's time to go screw over the #1 tourism destination in my state, after nearly 55 years of status quo."

In reality, Disney threw the first punch

uhhh.. speaking up against new legislation that the state enacted is not 'throwing the first punch'... it was in response to what the state had already done that many felt was wrong, driving Disney to stand up in opposition.

How could they have opposed something if they were first to do something?

What Disney was doing was perfectly within the right of every citizen... to criticize and lobby their government. There is no 'punch' there... when DeSantis turned to retaliation -- that's when the topic went from politics to trying to rumble.

 

[Chi84]

Am I correct in my understanding that you are claiming that Disney didn't "fire the first shot" because they were free to fire said "shot" in the first place? If so, that's a valid and understandable point. I'm merely pointing out that DeSantis didn't just decide out of nowhere to shoot at Disney, wrong as his "shot" may have been. There was a clear antecedent.

If people criticize politicians or speak out against laws, the politicians are always going to be angry and upset about it.

But we have a participatory form of government where people are encouraged to legally speak out against or oppose legislation they think is wrong.

If politicians retaliate and people simply say “well the citizens started it,” participation in government will be unduly discouraged.

We need to stand up for freedom of speech even if we don’t like what’s being said - because next time it may be our speech that’s disfavored.

 

[Brian]

uhhh.. speaking up against new legislation that the state enacted is not 'throwing the first punch'... it was in response to what the state had already done that many felt was wrong, driving Disney to stand up in opposition.

Disney was not an "interested party" in said legislation. If it were a bill pertaining to taxes on amusement park admission in the state, I would agree with you, but it was a bill related to education.

In other words, Disney wasn't punched by that new legislation. Sure, they have the right to speak out against or in favor of any legislation they please, but they weren't victimized by it.

ETA: For posterity's sake, all "legislation" referenced in this post is the "legislation that shall not be named" not the legislation eliminating RCID or instituting the CFTOD.

 

[Chi84]

Disney was not an "interested party" in said legislation. If it were a bill pertaining to taxes on amusement park admission in the state, I would agree with you, but it was a bill related to education.

In other words, Disney wasn't punched by that new legislation. Sure, they have the right to speak out against or in favor of any legislation they please, but they weren't victimized by it.

But then you’re saying only the victims of a law should be able to speak out about it? Many times victims, by their very position, need the help of stronger allies.

Think about what that would mean. If a certain religion was being targeted, no one else has any business standing up and speaking for them?

The first amendment gives each one of us the right to decide for ourselves which laws to oppose. We don’t have to stand by and watch while others are being treated unfairly.

 

[flynnibus]

Disney was not an "interested party" in said legislation. If it were a bill pertaining to taxes on amusement park admission in the state, I would agree with you, but it was a bill related to education.

Disney is one of the largest employers in the state and represents tens of thousands of floridians. Companies recognize their employees are HUMANS who have their work experience influenced by their LIFE experience.

Same way companies respond when there is a natural disaster, or a tragedy that impacts their employees - even if it's not directly in their line of work.

In other words, Disney wasn't punched by that new legislation. Sure, they have the right to speak out against or in favor of any legislation they please, but they weren't victimized by it.

Such a belief is so cold that it completely dehumanizes employees and suggests employers should just tell employees to deal with their own stuff and stop bothering them with their non-job stuff.

That's not how companies that want to support the wellness of their employees and community in which they live. Disney is also a neighbor, sponsor, and partner in thousands of elements in the state.

 

[Brian]

But then you’re saying only the victims of a law should be able to speak out about it? Many times victims, by their very position, need the help of stronger allies.

Think about what that would mean. If a certain religion was being targeted, no one else has any business standing up and speaking for them?

The first amendment gives each one of us the right to decide for ourselves which laws to oppose. We don’t have to stand by and watch while others are being treated unfairly.

To answer your question: not at all, anyone is welcome to speak out against what they view as unjust, but the person or entity rendering aid doesn't get to claim they too were victimized, or to use my previous example, "punched at" by it.

If a group of Christians started speaking out against the plight of Uyghur Muslims in China, unless/until China or another entity strikes back at those Christians for speaking out, the only ones who can reasonably say they are victimized in that situation are the Uyghurs themselves.

 

[LittleBuford]

We don’t have to stand by and watch while others are being treated unfairly.

I think one of the reasons you can’t convince him (despite the cogency of your argument) is that @Brian doesn’t think Disney is being treated unfairly, even if he acknowledges that the situation has got out of hand. A few weeks ago, I posted that some here seemed to be pleased that Disney was being (from their perspective) cut down to size, and he identified himself as feeling this way. It may be impossible to change his mind given where he personally stands on the matter.

 

[LittleBuford]

To answer your question: not at all, anyone is welcome to speak out against what they view as unjust, but the person or entity rendering aid doesn't get to claim they too were victimized, or to use my previous example, "punched at" by it.

If a group of Christians started speaking out against the plight of Uyghur Muslims in China, unless/until China or another entity strikes back at those Christians for speaking out, the only ones who can reasonably say they are victimized in that situation are the Uyghurs themselves.

The analogy is irrelevant, because Disney never claimed to be victimised.

 

[Brian]

I think one of the reasons you can’t convince him (despite the cogency of your argument) is that @Brian doesn’t think Disney is being treated unfairly, even if he acknowledges that the situation has got out of hand. A few weeks ago, I posted that some here seemed to be pleased that Disney was being (from their perspective) cut down to size, and he identified himself as feeling this way. It may be impossible to change his mind given where he personally stands on the matter.

I did indeed take pleasure in the notion of Disney being "cut down to size," since I abhor corporate activism, and trend ideologically conservative, but disagree with the means and circumstances under which the cutting down occurred, and am troubled by the legal, constitutional and ethical lines it crossed. It's a bit of a quandary for me, to be honest.

 

[LittleBuford]

I did indeed take pleasure in the notion of Disney being "cut down to size," since I abhor corporate activism, and trend ideologically conservative, but disagree with the means and circumstances by which the cutting down occurred, and am troubled by the legal, constitutional and ethical lines it crossed. It's a bit of a quandary for me, to be honest.

Your ambivalence is apparent from your posts, though I have to say that your latest comments seem somewhat to undermine the bolded.

 

[flynnibus]

I did indeed take pleasure in the notion of Disney being "cut down to size," since I abhor corporate activism, and trend ideologically conservative, but disagree with the means and circumstances by which the cutting down occurred, and am troubled by the legal, constitutional and ethical lines it crossed. It's a bit of a quandary for me, to be honest.

So you abhor my employer sponsoring the Special Olympics?
Or donating to shelters?
Or sponsoring education in 3rd world countries?
Or donating to schools?
Or sit on committees when invited by the White House?

They should... just stick solely to their core of running the products and services business they operate... and hide their head in the sand when it comes to anything about the world in which they operate?