ToTBellHop
Well-Known Member
Magic Kingdom is always “the swamp” in my house.
-
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
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
It has to do with facially valid test. What really hinders any claimed validity of the laws isn’t federal law, but state law.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
It is unique in having its level of taxing authority and having a state appointed board.
Dranth
Well-Known Member
The problem is the people that support this type of thing don't ever connect the two. They will scream their brains out if the shoe is on the other foot while making endless, trivial, often far-fetched excuses on why when their "team" did the same thing it was okay or different somehow.
Good analyses. It's not that government passed a law that the law itself restricts or prohibits speech (O'Brien) but that the government uses law to retaliate for prior speech it doesn't like. And that, as prior courts have ruled, is unconstitutional.
Government has historically passed law that either prohibits or punishes speech it doesn't like.
Look at the controversy over the burning of the flag. In Texas v. Johnson (1989), SCOTUS overturned the conviction of Mr. Johnson who had burned the US flag in protest during a party's convention. The ruling invalidated flag desecration laws in 48 states [I've always found it ironic that the method recommended in the US Flag Code for disposing of a tattered and worn flag is to destroy it by burning it]. In response, Congress passed the Flag Protection Act in 1989. SCOTUS again confirmed in United States v. Eichman (1990) that flag burning was a protected form of free speech, and overruled the Flag Protection Act as unconstitutional.
My point here is that the courts have confirmed that speech many would not only find objectionable but unpatriotic is protected. And in doing so, struck down not only existing laws prohibiting said speech, but any further attempts by government to do so.
lentesta
Premium Member
CNN reporting House Speaker McCarthy (R) says DeSantis should sit down w/Disney and end feud, threat to build prison next to WDW "not a good idea."
GoofGoof
Premium Member
Exactly. I think the precedent should fall to cases where a government took action to punish a person (or in this case a corporation) for speaking out against the government. The punishment itself is not relevant it’s the motivation for it. In O’Brien and other cases like flag burning the action itself which was blocked by government action was an expression of free speech. In this case there is no question that there is no constitutionally protected right to a special district, but the Government cannot take action (even if the action is legal) that singles out an individual for punishment.
Prince-1
Well-Known Member
For some reason I don't think Ron is going to listen to what McCarthy has to say.
GoofGoof
Premium Member
The irony should not be lost on anyone that the Governor who proclaims FL the freest state in America continues to push government overreach and continues to push legislation that limits the very freedom he claims to care about. Freedom and rights are great…..as long as you agree with everything I say
GoofGoof
Premium Member
I don’t think he’s listening to anyone
. Either way, as Governor of FL he really doesn’t need to listen to McCarthy, but as POTUS he would need to work very closely with him….even if the house flips.
ParentsOf4
Well-Known Member
Texas v Johnson goes to the core of free speech protection - popular speech does not need to be protected.
It doesn’t take much bravery to say something people agree with. It takes a lot more to say something they don’t.
Smiley/OCD
Well-Known Member
A Very good, intellectually driven discussion about the situation the mouse finds itself in…unfortunately, no one in the Republican leadership, no one in his circle, not even his biggest boss, his wife, is going to change his mind to take the foot off the gas. We just have to hope the courts see through the vindictiveness, retaliation and attack on 1A to finally put him in his place.
DeSantis is accruing criticism over this from his own party:
Of course, a common thread among these critics is that they're anticipating running against DeSantis for the Republican nomination, or, are supporting someone other than DeSantis for President.
But, it shows that they think this is a weakness for DeSantis within their party, making it harder for DeSantis to portray himself as in step with his party.
It's not going to be easy to get a crowd at a rally to chant: "Remove special districts from woke companies!!"
- Influential FL State Senator, Joe Gruters
- Chris Christie
- Nikki Haley
- Asa Hutchinson (Arkansas Gov.)
- New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu
- Lindsay Graham
- House Speaker Kevin McCarthy
- Mike Pence
- Donald Trump
- Wall Street Journal (editorial board)
- {edit, added:} National Review saying DeSantis is "misguided" in all this.
Of course, a common thread among these critics is that they're anticipating running against DeSantis for the Republican nomination, or, are supporting someone other than DeSantis for President.
But, it shows that they think this is a weakness for DeSantis within their party, making it harder for DeSantis to portray himself as in step with his party.
It's not going to be easy to get a crowd at a rally to chant: "Remove special districts from woke companies!!"
Last edited:
Republican governors have used The Villages frequently as a backdrop for press conferences, fund raising, etc. DeSantis isn't the first. Charlie Crist went there during both campaigns for governor in 2006 and 2022.
Anyone interested in the impact fee issue mentioned previously, here's an entertaining report. The remainder of the article discusses other issues related to the governance of The Villages.
How a Grassroots Revolt in the Iconic Retirement Community Ended With a 72-Year-Old Political Prisoner
Reformers in The Villages retirement community unleashed the fury of the Florida GOP and its business elite, and left two men facing garbage felony charges.
theintercept.com
GoofGoof
Premium Member
Some more context from legal experts:
www.yahoo.com
For Disney to prevail, a jury would have to find a connection between the company's comments and the changes to the development district, renamed under DeSantis' control as the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District. DeSantis may argue that government has given the company special tax benefits over the years and Florida is entitled to change that. But Leslie Kendrick, the director of the Center for the First Amendment at University of Virginia School of Law, said it will come down to the reason for the changes. "First Amendment law would say that is problematic if it's done because of the speaker's protected speech," Kendrick said.
DeSantis' tough talk toward Disney is cited throughout the lawsuit, including 18 quotes referring to some form of "woke Disney." The lawsuit cites an opinion piece DeSantis wrote for the Wall Street Journal in which he said when companies like Disney use their power to "advance a woke agenda," leaders must fight back or they surrender "the political battlefield to the militant left." Legal experts said examples of retaliation for political speech often involve state employees. One business example Kendrick cited involved a newspaper tax imposed on publications with a circulation of 20,000 in Louisiana in 1934, influenced by the state's powerful senator, Huey Long. The law was largely seen as punishing a student paper critical of the former governor, even though it impacted 13 publications, many of which sued. The lawsuit over the tax eventually made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which struck it down in a case known as Grosjean v American Press Co. The justices said the tax was seen as a deliberate attempt to limit the spread of information and it was "suspicious" the way law was developed.
"History and context really matters," Kendrick said. "If there is evidence that you did it for reasons that implicate the First Amendment, to punish the speaker, then we have a problem."
DeSantis' tough words may come back to haunt him in Disney lawsuit -experts
Now that the year-long war of words between Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and the Walt Disney Co has landed in the courts, the Republican leader might find his verbal barbs directed at the entertainment giant coming back to bite, legal experts said. Disney on Wednesday sued DeSantis to prevent...
For Disney to prevail, a jury would have to find a connection between the company's comments and the changes to the development district, renamed under DeSantis' control as the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District. DeSantis may argue that government has given the company special tax benefits over the years and Florida is entitled to change that. But Leslie Kendrick, the director of the Center for the First Amendment at University of Virginia School of Law, said it will come down to the reason for the changes. "First Amendment law would say that is problematic if it's done because of the speaker's protected speech," Kendrick said.
DeSantis' tough talk toward Disney is cited throughout the lawsuit, including 18 quotes referring to some form of "woke Disney." The lawsuit cites an opinion piece DeSantis wrote for the Wall Street Journal in which he said when companies like Disney use their power to "advance a woke agenda," leaders must fight back or they surrender "the political battlefield to the militant left." Legal experts said examples of retaliation for political speech often involve state employees. One business example Kendrick cited involved a newspaper tax imposed on publications with a circulation of 20,000 in Louisiana in 1934, influenced by the state's powerful senator, Huey Long. The law was largely seen as punishing a student paper critical of the former governor, even though it impacted 13 publications, many of which sued. The lawsuit over the tax eventually made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which struck it down in a case known as Grosjean v American Press Co. The justices said the tax was seen as a deliberate attempt to limit the spread of information and it was "suspicious" the way law was developed.
"History and context really matters," Kendrick said. "If there is evidence that you did it for reasons that implicate the First Amendment, to punish the speaker, then we have a problem."
lentesta
Premium Member
CaptainAmerica
Premium Member
This is a bad example. Texas v. Johnson wasn't about whether banning unpopular/unpatriotic speech was okay. It was already clearly established by that point (in National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie) that unpopular/unpatriotic, even hateful speech was protected.
Texas v. Johnson was about whether burning the flag was even "speech" in the first place, or if it was violence.
- You CANNOT ban speech, even unpopular speech. <- Not an issue in Texas v. Johnson.
- You CAN ban violence.
- Burning the flag is speech, not violence. <- Established in Texas v. Johnson.
GoofGoof
Premium Member
I agree these people mostly are political opponents of the Governor (or will be soon) even though they are in the same party so they may be somewhat biased. However, what we have also seen recently are reports of mega donors (particularly Peterffy) who were previously backing him pulling back. That should be the most troubling news for his campaign.
Ron DeSantis just lost another donor
After financier Thomas Peterffy said he had put donations to the Florida governor "on hold," another billionaire, John Catsimatidis, has pulled his funding.
www.newsweek.com
CaptainAmerica
Premium Member
This is so disconnected from reality.
Define "the party."
If by "the party" you mean "the rank-and-file people who vote in Republican primaries," those people HATE Chris Christie, Nikki Haley, Asa Hutchinson, Lindsay Graham, Mike Pence and so on and so on.
What Ron DeSantis is doing is anti-Conservative, but the Republican Party is not a Conservative party anymore, they're a populist party. Pick your term... the Republican Establishment, the GOP elites, the RINOs, the Swamp, the Georgetown cocktail party crowd, the Rockefeller Republicans, the Zombie Raeganists... DeSantis wants to be attacked by those people because the GOP primary voters hate those people. DeSantis wants to be out of step with his party's establishment.