-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News Reedy Creek Improvement District and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District
- Thread starter castlecake2.0
- Start date
GoofGoof
Premium Member
I didn’t think it was saying motive was completely irrelevant. In that case they couldn’t prove motive but there was evidence of a legitimate reason for doing what they did. From your post:
W]e think it clear, that a government regulation is sufficiently justified if it is within the constitutional power of the Government; if it furthers an important or substantial governmental interest; if the governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression; and if the incidential restriction on alleged First Amendment freedoms is not greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest
So in that case they determined there was an important government interest that was unrelated to the suppression of free speech. In this case the people passing the legislation have already told us their motivation was to punish Disney. That’s not a substantial governmental interest and even if it was, that interest is not unrelated to free speech.
The motive of the legislature is not irrelevant, it’s usually just difficult to prove the true motive.
mikejs78
Premium Member
Exactly. In Kensington you didn't have a legislative record of legislators stating, on the record, that this was being done to punish the volunteer firefighters.
There's also the subsequent evidence, with the laws that the legislature is about to pass now regarding monorail inspection and the actual voiding of the contract. In the former case, they will have to show why there is a need to write the law in such a way as to only apply to special districts that span more than one county. In the latter, they will need to show why breaking the contractors in the public interest. But all these legislative acts together establishes a pattern of behavior – We are not just dealing with one isolated legislative act.
…correct….
…and 1000% correct
It’s amazing how many have forgotten - or more accurately not bothered to take 1 hour to educate themselves…
…that Disney BUILT central Florida
There was nothing there prior. Tourism followed and it’s one of the most concentrated areas in the country/world…
None of this should be in dispute. For a second.
To say RCID needed “changing” is devoid of factual basis. Only low paid workers have a legitimate complaint as to the “downsides”
…but I bet we aren’t gonna fix that…are we Florida?
That's not entirely accurate. The population of Orlando in the mid 1960s was over 250K.
GoofGoof
Premium Member
At least have the whole legal team wearing custom Mickey Ears and these t-shirts
BagOfGroceries
Well-Known Member
The Most Magical Legal Team on Earth is off to kick butt. Go get em!
mikejs78
Premium Member
Add in the caption "We are the magic" below.
BagOfGroceries
Well-Known Member
They’re the people making the aforementioned call.
JAB
Well-Known Member
State lawyer: "Your honor; I object to this whole Mickey Mouse operation!"
Disney lawyer in the room hears this and starts drafting a trademark infringement suit.
flynnibus
Premium Member
well one.. they'd say it wasn't only RCID that was targeted by 4C - they'd point to the other districts that were caught in the net too.
And 9B is about redoing the charter... so obviously that bill would be specific to RCID.
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
I believe that was “regional”
Orlando itself had a population of 50,000 when RETLAW showed up.
Now it’s like 400,000? 2 mil region?
8x and 8x
But beyond that…I’ve used the analogy before: Orlando kinda acts like a college town.
Colleges towns always claim “our town would be here without School X…”
Right…but there’d be open tables at the 1 Applebees
flynnibus
Premium Member
But there are other 'government interests' that are not suppression of free speech - that's the crux and where the debate will be. The ruling about legislative immunity is not that every element is free of suppression of speech, but more that the act is MORE than that. When they justify that.. the suppression part is ignored. Hence why in O'Brian while jailing someone for the burning of draft cards is in itself suppressing political speech, the gov successfully argued there are other legitimate government interests to have the law... so the 1A suppression element was ignored.
flynnibus
Premium Member
No, even the NEED to quantify that motive is not part of the discussion... It's considered immunity and the motive angle irrelevant.
Kensignton wasn't about a failure to prove motive - quite the opposite - it found motive was irrelevant because the action itself was otherwise legitimate legislative action.
Vegas Disney Fan
Well-Known Member
Andrew C
You know what's funny?
What’s the return policy if they lose? Full refund or just a credit for another purchase?
UNCgolf
Well-Known Member
I personally don't find the Kensington argument very persuasive. In addition to the fact that it's a 4th Circuit ruling (persuasive authority rather than mandatory -- the 11th Circuit is free to ignore it), I don't think it's difficult to differentiate between the facts of that case and the facts of this one.
The actual controlling Supreme Court case (O'Brien) lays out a four part test, and Disney can certainly make a good argument that the law does not pass the O'Brien test. It'll be up to a judge to interpret and decide.
The actual controlling Supreme Court case (O'Brien) lays out a four part test, and Disney can certainly make a good argument that the law does not pass the O'Brien test. It'll be up to a judge to interpret and decide.
GoofGoof
Premium Member
As someone posted earlier the Federal Judge in this case is a tough draw for DeSantis. He called FL a First Amendment upside down
Walker said Florida had become a place where the First Amendment allowed, rather than prevented, the state to limit speech. Or as he put it, "in the popular television series Stranger Things, the 'upside down' describes a parallel dimension containing a distorted version of our world. Recently, Florida has seemed like a First Amendment upside down."
The appeals court will likely decide whether whatever he rules is going to stand, but it’s a bad first draw for the state.
www.yahoo.com
Walker said Florida had become a place where the First Amendment allowed, rather than prevented, the state to limit speech. Or as he put it, "in the popular television series Stranger Things, the 'upside down' describes a parallel dimension containing a distorted version of our world. Recently, Florida has seemed like a First Amendment upside down."
The appeals court will likely decide whether whatever he rules is going to stand, but it’s a bad first draw for the state.
Disney v. DeSantis judge called Florida governor's law 'dystopian'
WILMINGTON, Delaware (Reuters) -When attorneys for Florida Governor Ron DeSantis appear in court to defend against Walt Disney Co's lawsuit that accuses the Republican official of weaponizing state government, they will see a familiar face, if not always a welcome one. U.S. District Judge Mark...
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
Good grief…Ben Ginsberg just said Disney has a 1A case and Florida is overreaching…
…man…this guy thinks Nixon parted the red sea
…man…this guy thinks Nixon parted the red sea
Last edited: