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

[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.

 

[Chi84]

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

You can, but you would lose unless you were fired for a reason not allowed by law.

 

[mmascari]

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.

Can you explain what special privilege Disney has that isn't also available to everyone else?
If it's available to everyone else, is it really special?

Not that it would matter. Government retaliation is retaliation. None of the proposed or enacted changes were done because of a desired change to anything being changed. They were all done because of the speech.

 

[GBAB1973]

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…

Subvert municipal law?

 

[Chi84]

A friend just sent me this link. I know it’s Fox News but if true it may not help their case

Disney lawyers worried about ‘optics,’ disguised their input in last-ditch development deal, emails show - https://www.foxnews.com/politics/di...input-last-ditch-development-deal-emails-show

You're linking to Fox News - today?!

 

[lewisc]

A friend just sent me this link. I know it’s Fox News but if true it may not help their case

Disney lawyers worried about ‘optics,’ disguised their input in last-ditch development deal, emails show - https://www.foxnews.com/politics/di...input-last-ditch-development-deal-emails-show

The actual emails were posted earlier in this thread. The law firn who did the work didn't want thier name in it, the law firm was afraid of retaliation by the governor or the state of FL.

 

[Vicarious Fan]

this is such a weird fight for them. Claiming that Disney is this evil corporation just doesn't hit with the majority of Americans. The Majority of Americans still see Disney as squeaky clean and making good content for families and kids. Even if DeSantis some how wins this fight he will still lose in the court of popular opinion.

 

[mkt]

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

Which is constitutionally protected free speech.

 

[Chi84]

"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.

What Disney did is political speech, not commercial speech. Commercial speech applies to exaggerating or "puffing" in order to sell your products.

 

[StaceyH_SD]

The constitution doesn't say anything about corporations and was written that individuals have free speech.

It doesn’t but Citizens United v FEC says otherwise. Under that SCOTUS decision corporations are people too and have the same free speech right that individuals do. Meaning, Ron DeSantis and his legislature can’t retaliate against Disney for speaking out about about their legislation. Oh, and money (as in campaign contributions) is also free speech.

 

[Figgy1]

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.

@mkt covered this a few pages back, it goes back way before CU

 

[lentesta]

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.

Dude, it's right there in Section 9. C'mon, man.

 

[lentesta]

You're linking to Fox News - today?!

"Irony isn't dead. Film at 11."