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

[GBAB1973]

"Believe me, folks, if that had been me going up against Disney, it would be a much different outcome, much different. DeSanctus is a lightweight and couldn't even take on Mickey Mouse. They'd be coming to me crying saying "Sir... you were right all along." and I'd tell them, well we all have our own problems. And speaking of problems, how about that Taylor Swift? This is true, one night I was sitting in the beautiful south wing of Mar-a-Lago, really a magnificent property when you think about it, when Taylor Swift called me and said "Thank you, Mr. President, for making America great again." and I told her you know what, it must be exhausting always rooting for the anti-heroes, good for you for finally coming around. And speaking of coming around..."

LOL.

The sad thing is that this is totally believable. Maybe throw in a line or two about how at one time, Disney was so impressed with Trump Tower that they sent their best architects and designers to NYC to help them build their new hotels. And that Disney once wanted to create a new character based on him.

 

[Dan Deesnee]

Not from the government. That's LITERALLY the first amendment of the constitution.

Speech with government consequences is NOT free speech.

The constitution doesn't say anything about corporations and was written that individuals have free speech. If a corporation verbally attacks with the intent to harm a government and sitting government individuals, I'm guessing that could be uncharted legal territory.

If the Florida government is doing something wrong here, Disney will sue them and likely win.

Not sure. But to say the people of Florida no longer have free speech is absurd.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I think you also need one of the landowners who didn’t properly receive the notice to claim a grievance. If a landowner comes forward and says they didn’t know about this and therefore didn’t have the opportunity to provide public comment then that could be a problem. If nobody was harmed then there’s no issue. The mailing is only done to protect affected parties.

I can’t imagine the contorting a judge would have to do to justify letting the district move forward with an action. Their whole argument is that they didn’t tell others so they have to void the agreement so they can change the long established land use regulations to change them to something else they, and they alone, have in mind that did not come from those affected parties.

That they’re seeking to assume for themselves the unilateral authority to void contracts suggests they know they don’t have a case. It forces Disney to act against the “will of the people”.

 

[mkt]

One thing I have learned in the age of Trump, is that there are a lot of people, many conservatives, who actually don't understand the concept of free speech in this country.

They focused on a narrow interpretation of one amendment so intensely that they forget that there are more than 20 other amendments, plus all the articles before the amendments.

 

[Tinkwings]

 

[Dan Deesnee]

It absolutely does!

In places like China, Russia, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, etc

Actually, everywhere. I'm free to call my boss an idiot. Then I get fired.

 

[mmascari]

At some point, as this drags on, Trump will brag that he, and only he, could have taken on Disney and beaten them.

I head that just the other day, someone with tears in their eye said to him "If only you instead of Meatball Ron were taking care of Disney, we would have won!"

 

[mkt]

The constitution doesn't say anything about corporations and was written that individuals have free speech. If a corporation attacks with the intent to harm a government and sitting government individuals, I'm guessing that could be uncharted legal territory.

Nope, not uncharted. Grosjean v. American Press Co. in 1936 asserted that corporations have free speech, and subsequently Citizens United made corporations into people.

 

[drnilescrane]

I can’t imagine the contorting a judge would have to do to justify letting the district move forward with an action. Their whole argument is that they didn’t tell others so they have to void the agreement so they can change the long established land use regulations to change them to something else they, and they alone, have in mind that did not come from those affected parties.

That they’re seeking to assume for themselves the unilateral authority to void contracts suggests they know they don’t have a case. It forces Disney to act against the “will of the people”.

I love the cognitive dissonance of "these agreements are null anyway" and "we've going to get the legislature to retroactively void them".

Which one is it guys?

 

[Disorbust]

Didn't corporations become "individuals" in Citizens Untied?

 

[Brian]

I head that just the other day, someone with tears in their eye said to him "If only you instead of Meatball Ron were taking care of Disney, we would have won!"

"He came up to me, tears in eyes, big fella, and said: Sir..."

 

[tissandtully]

The constitution doesn't say anything about corporations and was written that individuals have free speech. If a corporation verbally attacks with the intent to harm a government and sitting government individuals, I'm guessing that could be uncharted legal territory.

If the Florida government is doing something wrong here, Disney will sue them and likely win.

Not sure. But to say the people of Florida no longer have free speech is absurd.

Uh, Citizens United

 

[Creathir]

I think the people on this board really do care about the outcome and they actually want to screw Disney. They're doing it for their pound of flesh, they're not just doing it as a stunt.

Let’s be honest here: Disney tried a last minute poison pill, it didn’t work, and further increased tensions between them and the incoming board.

Whatever chance of amicability that was there before, was completely destroyed by Disney trying to subvert the new incoming board.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes…

 

[mkt]

Didn't corporations become "individuals" in Citizens Untied?

Yep.

And they had free speech rights for decade before that.

 

[Dranth]

The constitution doesn't say anything about corporations and was written that individuals have free speech. If a corporation verbally attacks with the intent to harm a government and sitting government individuals, I'm guessing that could be uncharted legal territory.

If the Florida government is doing something wrong here, Disney will sue them and likely win.

Not sure. But to say the people of Florida no longer have free speech is absurd.

SCOTUS disagrees and last I checked they had the final say on the matter. Maybe they will change their minds again but I doubt it will be under the current group.

 

[tissandtully]

Actually, everywhere. I'm free to call my boss an idiot. Then I get fired.

Man you are missing the boat

 

[mkt]

Let’s be honest here: Disney tried a last minute poison pill, it didn’t work, and further increased tensions between them and the incoming board.

It'll work if they assert their constitutional rights and sue.

 

[Dan Deesnee]

Nope, not uncharted. Grosjean v. American Press Co. in 1936 asserted that corporations have free speech, and subsequently Citizens United made corporations into people.

Interesting, but wasn't that for freedom of the press? Disney is not the press or a news agency so does it apply here?

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Didn't corporations become "individuals" in Citizens Untied?

No.

The principle of corporate personhood is older than Citizens United. Corporate personhood is older than the United States. Hell, corporate personhood is older than Christianity.

 

[mkt]

Actually, everywhere. I'm free to call my boss an idiot. Then I get fired.

Yeah. Free speech is between you and the government.

Your boss doesn't have to give you free speech while at work.