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

M

mmascari

Well-Known Member
Dan Deesnee said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
G

GBAB1973

Well-Known Member
Creathir said:
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…
Click to expand...

Subvert municipal law?
 
L

lewisc

Well-Known Member
GhostHost1000 said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
Chi84

Chi84

Premium Member
Dan Deesnee said:
"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.
Click to expand...
What Disney did is political speech, not commercial speech. Commercial speech applies to exaggerating or "puffing" in order to sell your products.
 
S

StaceyH_SD

Well-Known Member
Dan Deesnee said:
The constitution doesn't say anything about corporations and was written that individuals have free speech.
Click to expand...
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

Figgy1

Well-Known Member
Dranth said:
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.
Click to expand...
@mkt covered this a few pages back, it goes back way before CU
 
lentesta

lentesta

Premium Member
Mr. Stay Puft said:
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.
Click to expand...
Dude, it's right there in Section 9. C'mon, man.
Screenshot from 2023-04-19 13-56-52.png
 
T

Touchdown

Well-Known Member
Politicians are also given wide reign to lie in public speech and not be held liable. There would have to prove he acted like this in private. That’s why the first amendment case is tough and Disney isn’t jumping on it. However, again, contract law is a very different matter.
 
GoofGoof

GoofGoof

Premium Member
Somewhere today Chris Christie is warming up a spot on the couch for Ronnie. If DeSantis wants to see his fate he needs to look no further than the former NJ Governor. The majority of people in this country generally are skeptical of the Government and are not fans of big Government overreach. Christie found this out the hard way with the bridge scandal followed by a failed POTUS run and his career is essentially over. This act may play well to his base in FL, but the White House runs through PA, MI, WI and to a lesser extent AZ or maybe NV. I can tell you from where I’m sitting DeSantis isn’t gaining anything acting this way. Somehow he’s making Trump look less unhinged which is saying a lot.
 
Last edited:
GhostHost1000

GhostHost1000

Premium Member
GoofGoof said:
Somewhere today Chris Christie is warming up a spot on the couch for Ronnie. If DeSantis wants to see his fate he needs to look no further than the former NJ Governor. The majority of people in this country generally are skeptical of the Government and are not fans of big Government overreach. Christie found this out the hard way with the bridge scandal followed by a failed POTUS run and his career is essentially over. This act may play well to his base in FL, but the White House runs through PA, MI, WI and to a lesser extent AZ or maybe NV. I can tell you from where I’m sitting DeSantis isn’t gaining anything acting this way. Somehow he’s makimg Trump look less unhinged which is saying a lot.
Click to expand...
Agreed
 
G

GBAB1973

Well-Known Member
Dan Deesnee said:
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.
Click to expand...

The problem here isn't that the government stopped "supporting" Disney. The government torched something that had worked for half a century and attempted a hostile takeover of a landowner driven board in order to exact revenge and possibly leverage/control Disney all because Disney didn't bow down to the wishes of the governor.

Saying the government just stopped "supporting" Disney is a nice attempt at softening what they really did here or are attempting to do.
 
SirLink

SirLink

Well-Known Member
It is strange when you compare whats happening to both NBC Comcast and TWDC in Florida, one was actively pressurized into speaking out against Florida by an anti-democratic cohort within Burbank. Similar small cohort within NBC Comcast tried to pressurize management speaking about Florida and management refused to do so.

Just think if Ron manages to exterminate the rodent the impact that will have on the job market in Florida, all that add. labor could end up putting pressure to lower wages.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom