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

[flynnibus]

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

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]

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…

reason.com

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?

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]

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…

reason.com

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.

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]

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…

reason.com

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.

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.

 

[jpeden]

All this arguing about the 1st A issues is well and good but can we at least acknowledge that the most likely scenario is a partial win for Disney on the contact law point and them being able to keep their contact?

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]

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.

Disney is also claiming the legislation was arbitrary and irrational and constitutes a violation of the due process clause.

 

[jpeden]

They haven't been confirmed yet.

Florida law allows them to serve as members-designate until they are confirmed or rejected by the Florida Senate.

 

[JoeCamel]

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.

Disney sold corporate bonds but not district development bonds, those are not Disney's responsibility

 

[Touchdown]

Florida law allows them to serve as members-designate until they are confirmed or rejected by the Florida Senate.

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]

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).

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]

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…

reason.com

The argument makes sense to me but I hope they are wrong.

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]

This is pretty funny take from a legal blog https://abovethelaw.com/2023/04/disney-desantis-lawsuit-filed/

 

[flynnibus]

I can understand the argument that if you cannot definitively prove motive

But that's just it.. it's not *if* you can prove motive, it's NOT RELEVANT in the angles being discussed there. That's the ugly side of the O'Brian SCOTUS case and these other interpretations that are premised on it.

The test from O'Brian isn't predicated on motive AT ALL. It's based on weighing the legitimate government interest in the action vs the limitation on speech. The legislative immunity angle cited in the other cases again is not about if motive is discernable or provable - but if the actions are basically provable to be of merit OUTSIDE of the retaliatory moves.

At the base of it, it is very saddening when you think such a fundamental principal is so blatently able to be stepped on... but this is why the topic is so complicated in the courts.

That said... I know of cases that have gone the other way to great negative consequence to the public in the face of upholding the 1A. In Ocean City MD the government lost multiple times trying to regulate street performers on their boardwalk (including very obvious flaunting of business regulation and other negative impacts to others) on 1A grounds.

 

[Chi84]

This is pretty funny take from a legal blog https://abovethelaw.com/2023/04/disney-desantis-lawsuit-filed/

That’s hilarious

 

[Patcheslee]

Boredom got to me, watched the Feb 10th Senate meeting video. Pizzo calling out the 9 bill because someone got their feelings hurt

 

[sanctumsolitude]

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…

reason.com

My 2 cents (if worth that) is that that is the wrong precedent for this lawsuit. Instead, the eleventh circuit’s ruling in Gwinnett County is more applicable. Here is the text from the very case they cite:

32 What our decision in Gwinnett County means, and whether it is distinguishable, is a question of law that we decide de novo. See Locke v. Shore, 634 F.3d 1185, 1191 (11th Cir. 2011). It is distinguishable. The facts of that case limit the holding of the decision to acts of governmental retaliation that explicitly single out a specific group. In that case, a school board adopted its superintendent’s recommendation to terminate the automatic payroll deduction of membership dues for members of the Georgia Association of Educators (GAE) and its local affiliate, the Gwinnett County Association of Educators (GCAE). 856 F.2d at 143–44. The recommendation came after the superintendent clashed with the GCAE over its representation of school system employees before the board and its affiliation with the National Education Association. Id. at 144 & n.1. The board members admitted that they had terminated the payroll dues deduction services for those reasons. Id. at 144. This Court held that — despite the fact that the teachers union had no constitutional right to automatic payroll deduction of membership dues — the county board of education could not deny the union’s members the benefit of that service as a “sanction[] for the expression of particular views it opposes.” Id. at 145 (quotation marks omitted).The crucial fact in Gwinnett County is that the school board did not adopt a generally applicable policy — it specifically singled out “GAE-GCAE members.”

 

[Touchdown]

But that's just it.. it's not *if* you can prove motive, it's NOT RELEVANT in the angles being discussed there. That's the ugly side of the O'Brian SCOTUS case and these other interpretations that are premised on it.

The test from O'Brian isn't predicated on motive AT ALL. It's based on weighing the legitimate government interest in the action vs the limitation on speech. The legislative immunity angle cited in the other cases again is not about if motive is discernable or provable - but if the actions are basically provable to be of merit OUTSIDE of the retaliatory moves.

At the base of it, it is very saddening when you think such a fundamental principal is so blatently able to be stepped on... but this is why the topic is so complicated in the courts.

That said... I know of cases that have gone the other way to great negative consequence to the public in the face of upholding the 1A. In Ocean City MD the government lost multiple times trying to regulate street performers on their boardwalk (including very obvious flaunting of business regulation and other negative impacts to others) on 1A grounds.

It’s also going to be exceedingly difficult to show legitimate government intent here though. What exactly has these acts accomplished to help the govt?

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

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.

I don’t think that’s how it will play. If disneh wins they’ll look for reset…”grandfathering”

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

MGM always in our house.

…till the heavens fall

 

[GoofGoof]

But that's just it.. it's not *if* you can prove motive, it's NOT RELEVANT in the angles being discussed there. That's the ugly side of the O'Brian SCOTUS case and these other interpretations that are premised on it.

The test from O'Brian isn't predicated on motive AT ALL. It's based on weighing the legitimate government interest in the action vs the limitation on speech. The legislative immunity angle cited in the other cases again is not about if motive is discernable or provable - but if the actions are basically provable to be of merit OUTSIDE of the retaliatory moves.

At the base of it, it is very saddening when you think such a fundamental principal is so blatently able to be stepped on... but this is why the topic is so complicated in the courts.

That said... I know of cases that have gone the other way to great negative consequence to the public in the face of upholding the 1A. In Ocean City MD the government lost multiple times trying to regulate street performers on their boardwalk (including very obvious flaunting of business regulation and other negative impacts to others) on 1A grounds.

I still don’t think it’s the same circumstances. In O’Brian the act by the government was to pass a criminal law that the plaintiff was then arrested for violating but he claimed it suppressed his Freedom of Speech. The ruling was essentially that the public interest in passing that law superceded the plaintiffs rights to free speech. The case had nothing to do with motive of the legislature. They were clear in passing a ban on burning draft cards that the intent was to stop people from burning draft cards.

In this case the legality of the law passed is not in question (or I should say not directly in question on 1A grounds, the contract issues are separate) but it was done in retaliation and to punish. So the cases to look at are probably more around retaliatory arrests. In this case it’s not a retaliatory arrest of an individual but a retaliatory action against a corporation.