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

[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.

 

[lentesta]

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.

Totally agree on Citizens and that the outcome of any case is "it depends".

In this situation, I'm encouraging Dan to get the basics of the First Amendment explained by someone who isn't some rando on the internet. I'm 99.44% sure anyone who picks up that phone will do a good job of it.

 

[Mr. Stay Puft]

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.

Show me where in the 1967 agreement with the state that the arrangement was contingent on Disney not ever exercising their political speech to criticize the state government over a law that was passed. I'll wait.

 

[MisterPenguin]

And don't forget about the pools and massage parlors....

Funny how the focus is on activities involving mostly disrobing.

No wonder the Karen on the board thinks Disney is sexualizing children if she and the others are obsessed with spas and pools. A lot of projection going on there.

 

[lazyboy97o]

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

Which is perfectly legal.

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.

Please provide the specific law that was subverted.

 

[peter11435]

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...

They are literally constitutionally protected in saying that.

Also I assumed the poster was referring to escalating tensions with the board not the original catalyst.

 

[Dranth]

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.

There has been more than one case decided that came down on the companies have protected speech rights just like people. I don't remember the whole thing but CU mainly focused on saying that donations are a form of speech and since corporations have the same protections of free speech they can spend unlimited money on PAC donations as PACs are not regulated the way direct contributions to a campaign are.

Someone with more of a legal background feel free to correct me.

 

[Chi84]

To me it's pretty simple. Disney said they would do everything they could to make sure the law didn't go into effect. Florida then responded by taking away Disneys special privileges. If Disney's not going to support the Florida govt. then why would the Florida govt. support disney?

It seems petty, and I think personally BOTH sides could have handled this better.

It doesn't work that way. Disney has a first amendment right under the constitution and the cases interpreting it not only to speak out against laws but also to use their resources to fight those laws. That you disagree or think this is uncharted does not change the law.

In our country, the government cannot retaliate against its citizens (whether individuals or corporations) for exercising their constitutional right to oppose a law they disagree with.

 

[Stripes]

Honestly, I am not very hopeful given the mail notice situation. The only thing I’m hanging onto is that both RCID and Disney read the requirement because that same statute spells out what must be included in both the newspaper notice and mailed notice. RCID followed the requirements to a tee.

And taking with a grain of salt, the New York Post wrote: “senior DeSantis administration officials say the company intentionally limited legally required public notices of the new agreement to shield it from scrutiny and ease its passage.”

My hope is that if in fact the lack of notice was intentional then surely Disney had a reason for not doing it.