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

[mkt]

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…

You didn't read my post correctly.

They will have to assert their first and fourteenth amendment rights in court, and sue. Possibly fifth and ninth amendment as well, on top of a violation of Art 1/Sec 10.

And what was done to them isn't close to equal to Universal. Universal goes before the county and city, Disney has to go before a board that is actively acting against their interests.

 

[mkt]

"Commercial speech is a form of protected communication under the First Amendment, but it does not receive as much free speech protection as forms of noncommercial speech."

There are many nuances to this. If this does go to court I can guarantee you that the court will not side with Disney based on a blanket "free speech" argument.

Context helps

Commercial speech refers to promotional speech, like an ad or a public relations press release. Not to a company saying they won't donate money to politicians because they disagree with their policies.

They'd likely win in court.

 

[lazyboy97o]

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…

More lying. Nothing proposed makes this “the same rules.” Even just today they discussed the state rules not being sufficient.

The lack of public disclosure and input would argue otherwise…

More lying. Public notices were published and public hearings held. The meeting minutes are available. You can look at the dates.

 

[peter11435]

A few hundreds pages back, everyone was PRAISING Disney for doing just that.

Because it’s blowing up in their face doesn’t change the fact that they tried to do so.

Where did disney escalate tensions? When did it blow up in their face?

 

[JusticeDisney]

"Commercial speech is a form of protected communication under the First Amendment, but it does not receive as much free speech protection as forms of noncommercial speech."

There are many nuances to this. If this does go to court I can guarantee you that the court will not side with Disney based on a blanket "free speech" argument.

No, you actually cannot guarantee that. You can opine that. Or predict it. But you cannot guarantee anything that the Supreme Court will do on this topic.

 

[GoofGoof]

Corporations have free speech in every state, including Florida. However, free speech has consequences sometimes. Corporations should probably just stay out of politics in general, like they used to. The average person just wants to enjoy what the company produces, not hear all about their political leanings...

You obviously don’t understand what free speech means. You cannot have free speech if that speech then has consequences imposed by the government. Any company that speaks may have consequences for that speech from consumers not buying their products, from groups organizing protests and from other companies refusing to do business with them. All perfectly legal and not a violation of free speech. When the consequences for speaking out is government retaliation that’s not free speech.

 

[Dan Deesnee]

Where did disney escalate tensions? When did it blow up in their face?

They literally said they would do everything they could to stop the bill from going into effect.

What you're a witnessing now is the blowing up in their face part...

 

[lazyboy97o]

If you are otherwise a great employee you could always hire a lawyer

And the lawyer would tell you that you have no case. Calling your boss an idiot does not make you part of a protected class.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Context helps

Commercial speech refers to promotional speech, like an ad or a public relations press release. Not to a company saying they won't donate money to politicians because they disagree with their policies.

They'd likely win in court.

Absolutely. It would be an issue of fact, not an issue of law.

If Disney can prove that this act was taken specifically to target them in retaliation for their speech (the question of fact), the law is clear. It would be unconstitutional.

 

[MandaM]

"Commercial speech is a form of protected communication under the First Amendment, but it does not receive as much free speech protection as forms of noncommercial speech."

There are many nuances to this. If this does go to court I can guarantee you that the court will not side with Disney based on a blanket "free speech" argument.

It wasn’t commercial speech. It was political speech, which is 100% protected speech.

Per the constitution, courts would side with Disney if the can prove DeSantis’ actions were retaliation for their speech. Which shouldn’t be hard to do, considering he and the legislature have flat-out said they were.

 

[Creathir]

You didn't read my post correctly.

They will have to assert their first and fourteenth amendment rights in court, and sue. Possibly fifth and ninth amendment as well, on top of a violation of Art 1/Sec 10.

And what was done to them isn't close to equal to Universal. Universal goes before the county and city, Disney has to go before a board that is actively acting against their interests.

Disney voluntarily placed themselves in the district in the first place 50 years ago.

They reaped the benefits of it for 50 years of autonomy.

Them losing that ability, while the merits of that loss can certainly be argued, have nothing to do with the outcome of their current predicament, particularly surrounding their (yet to be proven in court) intentional subversion of Florida municipal code and law.

 

[GoofGoof]

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

Free speech protects you from government retaliation, not your boss retaliating

 

[mkt]

Absolutely. It would be an issue of fact, not an issue of law.

If Disney can prove that this act was taken specifically to target them in retaliation for their speech (the question of fact), the law is clear. It would be unconstitutional.

Good thing that there's video of DeSantis saying as such.

 

[mkt]

Them losing that ability, while the merits of that loss can certainly be argued, have nothing to do with the outcome of their current predicament, particularly surrounding their (yet to be proven in court) intentional subversion of Florida municipal code and law.

What intentional subversion?

Do you mean the intentional subversion of Art 1/Sec 10 of the US constitution by the members of the CFTOD and Governor Ron DeSantis? Or the intentional subversion of Article's 4, 9, and 10 of the Florida Constitution by the same parties?

 

[Ripken10]

I encourage you to call whatever university law school is closest to where you live, and ask them if what you said above is true. I'd love to hear their response.

Just to note, there have been several lawyers on here that explained that Citizens United didn't give the rights everybody here assumes, and it is much murkier than people realize. It is all in this thread if one is will to try to search (it may be hard to find). I don't want to try to paraphrase at risk of saying it wrong. I thought ParentsOf4 was one of the individuals. I know one person even said that Citizens United is very controversial in law schools.

The basic jist I got from it is nobody really knows how this particular situation may have turned out if Disney had pursued it. This was likely why Disney would not venture into this sort of lawsuit. It definitely was not the slam dunk most people here think it is.

 

[Creathir]

What intentional subversion?

Do you mean the intentional subversion of Art 1/Sec 10 of the US constitution by the members of the CFTOD and Governor Ron DeSantis? Or the intentional subversion of Article's 4, 9, and 10 of the Florida Constitution by the same parties?

It was outlined in the meeting today.
Obviously, based on your presumed outcome, you do not feel it was.
Which is fine.

The current district board was making the case otherwise.

 

[MisterPenguin]

They literally said they would do everything they could to stop the bill from going into effect.

What you're a witnessing now is the blowing up in their face part...

The government attacked a business purposefully saying it was out of vengeance for having a contradictory opinion.

Of course this was going to come to a conflict as Disney tries to protect itself from the government attempting to stifle free speech.

Calling it "blowing up in their face" is meaningless. The conflict is expected.

Unless you mean Disney should have just rolled over and said "yas massah" to Florida's dictator.

Blame the victim. How nice of you.

 

[mkt]

It was outlined in the meeting today.
Obviously, based on your presumed outcome, you do not feel it was.
Which is fine.

The current district board was making the case otherwise.

You may want to read those snippets I mentioned.

If you don't see the clear constitutional violations, you may want to retake a basic high school civics class.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Disney voluntarily placed themselves in the district in the first place 50 years ago.

They reaped the benefits of it for 50 years of autonomy.

Them losing that ability, while the merits of that loss can certainly be argued, have nothing to do with the outcome of their current predicament, particularly surrounding their (yet to be proven in court) intentional subversion of Florida municipal code and law.

Blame the victim.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

And the lawyer would tell you that you have no case. Selling your boss an idiot does not make you part of a protected class.

Maybe, maybe not. Depends on the state and the type of company you worked for.