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

[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.

 

[GBAB1973]

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.

Maybe but that's not what happened here.

 

[tissandtully]

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…

I can’t believe there are people here who support government retaliation.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Let’s be honest here: Disney tried a last minute poison pill, it didn’t work

This is a lie. The public agreement process was started and completed months before state law would have potentially altered the district.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

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

You can’t legally get fired for having an opinion and speaking it. If you threaten your boss then you can get fired. If you continue to call him names and create a hostile work environment you can get fired. But for simply saying he’s an idiot. Nope.

If that were true Chapek could have fired most of the WDW management lol

 

[GBAB1973]

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?

It's called desperation.

 

[tissandtully]

This is a lie. The public agreement process was started and completed months before state law would have potentially altered the district.

I think I’m just gonna start to ignore the new folks here who off their opinion on Page 700 and couldn’t be bothered to read any of the other 600 pages. Tired of dealing with the misinformed.

 

[MandaM]

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.

The Supreme Court ruled corporations have the same rights as people in Citizens United.

Disney didn’t attack the government or governmental officials with the intent of doing harm. That’s utter nonsense. Disney exercised their constitutionally protected right to free speech by disagreeing with a bill.

The government is punishing Disney for their protected speech. That is a total violation of the 1st amendment. The Venn Diagram of people who support DeSantis’ actions and people who claim to hate censorship is mind-boggling. You’re either for freedom of speech or against it. If you’re for it, you can’t support DeSantis on this.

 

[GBAB1973]

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…

LOL.

Imagine looking at this and thinking the party escalating things here and creating tension here is Disney.

Not DeSantis and the legislature who threatened Disney. Not DeSantis who basically admitted he's exacting revenge on Disney for having a voice. Not DeSantis who wanted a board he could control that he could to use to leverage things out of Disney. Not the hand picked DeSantis board that basically said they hope they can use their new powers to dictate content and other things to Disney. Not the board and DeSantis who have basically alleged Disney is part of some sort of gay grooming culture for speaking out about the bill.

Nope, the real villain here is Disney who kept quiet for months while DeSantis carried out his takeover of Disney World and then took perfectly legal action to retain control of property they mostly own.

 

[Creathir]

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

What constitutional right do they have to subvert municipal law?

They can make a case they are being unfairly treated with the dissolution of the original district, but that has nothing to do with their attempts to upend municipal law in the State of Florida.

“It’s not fair! They are punishing us by making us play by the same rules as Universal!!!”

Yeah.. not going to fly…

 

[lazyboy97o]

You can’t legally get fired for having an opinion and speaking it. If you threaten your boss then you can get fired. If you continue to call him names and create a hostile work environment you can get fired. But for simply saying he’s an idiot. Nope.

If that were true Chapek could have fired most of the WDW management lol

No, in many places, particularly with at will employment, you absolutely can get fired for saying your boss is an idiot.

 

[Dan Deesnee]

I fear what they might do to Disney over this, especially with new ride construction, etc. It already takes them twice as long to build something as it should. Desantis seems to be out for blood.

 

[mmascari]

They could more bond debt, but isn't the goal to retire bonds not add to them?

How would that type of bond get rated?

I imagine something like this in the prospectus: We want to issue this bond to raise funds to pay lawyers so we can sue/defend suits the largest source of our income. All money from the bonds will be used on lawyers in actions against our largest source of income to repay the bonds with. Upon winning those suits, we'll use the victory to directly control/impact/harm that income source.

Doesn't sound like a AAA+ to me.