It's not. Hope you're safe.
-
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
It's not. Hope you're safe.
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
I don’t envy the mods on this…but I do want to acknowledge that they are trying to be fair under the circumstances.
Well done, lady and gentleman
Well done, lady and gentleman
Clearly they've never "worked" with lobbyists.
That is why Florida does have a chance of winning on the first bill. However the February 2023 bill is not just ending RCID it is mean, evil, vindictive and designed to hurt Disney. Florida has no chance of winning on that one. Then who gets hurt, the 2 counties and DeSantis because the second the court rules the February bill unconstitutional the bonds are no longer Disney's responsibly if the first bill is allowed. Further, Disney also wins because they will be under the 2 counties jurisdiction and not the States dictatorial BS.Don't everyone celebrate just yet.
While some attorneys are saying Disney has a strong case, this one says otherwise.
Worth the short read. In short, it's a complex matter and the judge could toss out at least their first amendment claims.
In looking thru the suit, I have to wonder if Disney's lawyers felt this as well, and put the first amendment violations as causes number 4 and 5, thinking they might have a lesser chance.
Precedent Supporting Constitutionality of Florida Legislature's Dissolving Disney Special Government District
As I suggested Friday and yesterday, Supreme Court precedent is unclear on whether Florida's dissolving the special government district that Florida hadreason.com
mikejs78
Well-Known Member
They did increase their board from 3 to 5 though. But still landowner based.
MGM always in our house.1 That's an unknown at this point
2 Some here still call DS DTD, DHS MGM.......................................
flynnibus
Premium Member
Don't everyone celebrate just yet.
While some attorneys are saying Disney has a strong case, this one says otherwise.
Worth the short read. In short, it's a complex matter and the judge could toss out at least their first amendment claims.
In looking thru the suit, I have to wonder if Disney's lawyers felt this as well, and put the first amendment violations as causes number 4 and 5, thinking they might have a lesser chance.
Precedent Supporting Constitutionality of Florida Legislature's Dissolving Disney Special Government District
As I suggested Friday and yesterday, Supreme Court precedent is unclear on whether Florida's dissolving the special government district that Florida had
This is basically the same arguments we we’re covering the other day… that the key pount is not if it’s retaliation, but if the move can be argued as facially valid outside the retaliation.
It relies on the same O’Brian fundamentals but represents different specifics in how the legislators moved.
flynnibus
Premium Member
I don’t agree. The actions in the second bill actually are probably more justifiable… changing appointments, modernization, etc. things that can be argued have legit purposes. Just because it’s rcid alone doesn’t at face value doom it. Nor does just the fact it reduces disney’s position. Plus ghey can argue it was needed because 4C basically calls for the districts to be revisited or dissolved… so they revisit it.
I think it’s cold and lacks emotion- but it is a position they can push
GoofGoof
Premium Member
I‘ve seen this argument several times here. It’s frightening to me that what they are basically implying is that there really is no 1st amendment freedom of speech protection in this country as long as the legislature punishes you and does it with an action that would otherwise be legal. That’s sad and scary at the same time, but I don’t think any of the cases referenced were as cut and dry as this. I can understand the argument that if you cannot definitively prove motive and if there is another legitimate reason for the action other than punishment then you can’t prove the action is punitive so it’s not a violation. In this case there’s zero doubt about the motive of the actions. None, not a single reasonable person can claim otherwise. So if we all know the motive was to punish Disney for speaking out and free speech (and freedom from Government retaliation for speaking out) is supposed to be protected by the Constitution how can anyone rule this is anything other than a constitutional violation?Don't everyone celebrate just yet.
While some attorneys are saying Disney has a strong case, this one says otherwise.
Worth the short read. In short, it's a complex matter and the judge could toss out at least their first amendment claims.
In looking thru the suit, I have to wonder if Disney's lawyers felt this as well, and put the first amendment violations as causes number 4 and 5, thinking they might have a lesser chance.
Precedent Supporting Constitutionality of Florida Legislature's Dissolving Disney Special Government District
As I suggested Friday and yesterday, Supreme Court precedent is unclear on whether Florida's dissolving the special government district that Florida had
It’s time we start holding people responsible for their actions and their public statements. I’m so sick of hearing people defend politicians and other public officials by saying they didn’t really mean what they said.
Chi84
Premium Member
Disney’s claims under the contracts and takings clauses of the constitution may be stronger. But there’s a lot more to the O’Brien decision than what is summarized in the article. It didn’t deal with a legislative act targeting a particular party and it dealt with expressive conduct instead of pure speech. It also set out a test for determining a statute’s constitutionality that isn’t mentioned in the article. But the case does support the state’s position.Don't everyone celebrate just yet.
While some attorneys are saying Disney has a strong case, this one says otherwise.
Worth the short read. In short, it's a complex matter and the judge could toss out at least their first amendment claims.
In looking thru the suit, I have to wonder if Disney's lawyers felt this as well, and put the first amendment violations as causes number 4 and 5, thinking they might have a lesser chance.
Precedent Supporting Constitutionality of Florida Legislature's Dissolving Disney Special Government District
As I suggested Friday and yesterday, Supreme Court precedent is unclear on whether Florida's dissolving the special government district that Florida had
I wonder if even Citizens United could be limited in some fashion.
It will be interesting to see how this proceeds through the courts.
mikejs78
Well-Known Member
Don't everyone celebrate just yet.
While some attorneys are saying Disney has a strong case, this one says otherwise.
Worth the short read. In short, it's a complex matter and the judge could toss out at least their first amendment claims.
In looking thru the suit, I have to wonder if Disney's lawyers felt this as well, and put the first amendment violations as causes number 4 and 5, thinking they might have a lesser chance.
Precedent Supporting Constitutionality of Florida Legislature's Dissolving Disney Special Government District
As I suggested Friday and yesterday, Supreme Court precedent is unclear on whether Florida's dissolving the special government district that Florida had
I don't know. There are different facts here than in other cases:
- Unlike the other cases, this was decided jn a special session called by the governor for the express purpose of punishing Disney. Had the special session not been called, the bill wouldn't necessarily have happened.
- There have been not one, not two, not three, but four bills targeted at Disney now, once the voiding bill and monorail bill pass.
- The governor has appointed a board that is intent on suppressing Disney's speech, from their own words.
Actually I think the 1st Amendment case is just as strong. To say that the government can retaliate against a corporation because they don’t have first amendment rights means that corporations aren’t people, meaning that it would overturn Citizens United- and a 6-3 SCOTUS isn’t going to do that (if it gets that far).
Chi84
Premium Member
Disney is also claiming the legislation was arbitrary and irrational and constitutes a violation of the due process clause.
Florida law allows them to serve as members-designate until they are confirmed or rejected by the Florida Senate.
JoeCamel
Well-Known Member
Disney sold corporate bonds but not district development bonds, those are not Disney's responsibility
Unless confirmed their appointment will end in 45 days from May 2nd. They may be reappointed and serve until the end of the next legislative session.
Stripes
Premium Member
A ruling against Disney’s 1A rights wouldn’t necessarily have any bearing on Citizens United. The Citizens United ruling declared that political donations from corporations is considered free speech. Corporations have had free speech rights long before Citizens United.
The legal issue is that none of the laws literally restrict Disney‘s speech. The laws chill Disney’s speech via retaliation.
I think the courts should absolutely consider retaliatory intent when considering the legality of the legislation but I’m not deciding the case
. This case has some similarities to other cases but also significant differences. We can only wait and see.RamblinWreck
Well-Known Member
The argument makes sense to me but I hope they are wrong.Don't everyone celebrate just yet.
While some attorneys are saying Disney has a strong case, this one says otherwise.
Worth the short read. In short, it's a complex matter and the judge could toss out at least their first amendment claims.
In looking thru the suit, I have to wonder if Disney's lawyers felt this as well, and put the first amendment violations as causes number 4 and 5, thinking they might have a lesser chance.
Precedent Supporting Constitutionality of Florida Legislature's Dissolving Disney Special Government District
As I suggested Friday and yesterday, Supreme Court precedent is unclear on whether Florida's dissolving the special government district that Florida had
Not for Disney’s sake, really. But if the courts give the government the green light to target people for their speech, that seems like a very bad precedent that is bound to be repeatedly abused in the near future.
Especially given how absolutely blatant and clear cut this scenario was.
tissandtully
Well-Known Member
This is pretty funny take from a legal blog https://abovethelaw.com/2023/04/disney-desantis-lawsuit-filed/