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

[Prince-1]

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."

For some reason I don't think Ron is going to listen to what McCarthy has to say.

 

[GoofGoof]

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.

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]

For some reason I don't think Ron is going to listen to what McCarthy has to say.

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]

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.

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]

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.

 

[MisterPenguin]

DeSantis is accruing criticism over this from his own party:

• 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!!"

 

[LAKid53]

DeSantis did fund raise several times at the Villages

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]

Some more context from legal experts:

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...

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."

 

[lentesta]

For some reason I don't think Ron is going to listen to what McCarthy has to say.

Oh, I know. He's only got one choice now.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

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.

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]

DeSantis is accruing criticism over this from his own party:

• 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)

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!!"

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]

DeSantis is accruing criticism over this from his own party:

• 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)

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!!"

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.

 

[LAKid53]

Some more context from legal experts:

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...

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."

It's not only a 1A issues, as many have stayed but a 5A and 14A.

 

[GoofGoof]

It's not only a 1A issues, as many have stayed but a 5A and 14A.

For sure. I think that is also why the free speech aspects are #4 and #5 on the list. The other violations are even more clear cut to me. It’s very possible this end up whatever the legal term is for a “split decision” if Disney loses the 1A arguments.

 

[lazyboy97o]

It's not only a 1A issues, as many have stayed but a 5A and 14A.

The free speech argument is the one specific to the organization of the district. The others are related to the land development agreement and covenants. The free speech argument is the big one that would undo everything.

 

[JAB]

He even seems to have started losing the right wing media as well.

Throughout this whole situation, the "news" outlet that everyone loves to hate has had their pro-DeSantis / anti-Disney spin articles in the featured articles section at the very top of their website. The day the lawsuit was filed, that spot was instead occupied by an article about how Trump was pulling ahead of DeSantis in the polls, and the article about the lawsuit was buried all the way down at the bottom of the page with no spun headline, just a simple "Disney files lawsuit against DeSantis."

 

[LAKid53]

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.

Johnson was convicted under the Texas flag desecration statute, which prohibited the desecration of valuable objects. A count of disorderly conduct had been dropped. The Texas appellate court overturned his conviction as a First Amendment violation, writing, "a government cannot mandate by fiat a feeling of unity in its citizens. Therefore that very same government cannot carve out a symbol of unity and prescribe a set of approved messages to be associated with that symbol." While the Court also affirmed that his actions did not constitute a "breach of peace", its ruling focused on speech.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Johnson was convicted under the Texas flag desecration statute, which prohibited the desecration of valuable objects. A count of disorderly conduct had been dropped. The Texas appellate court overturned his conviction as a First Amendment violation, writing, "a government cannot mandate by fiat a feeling of unity in its citizens. Therefore that very same government cannot carve out a symbol of unity and prescribe a set of approved messages to be associated with that symbol." While the Court also affirmed that his actions did not constitute a "breach of peace", its ruling focused on speech.

My point being, the Skokie case was decided over a decade earlier and the speech in that case was even more reprehensible. To the extent that Texas v. Johnson addressed speech, it was just telling us things we already knew from Skokie. It didn't really offer anything new.

 

[GoofGoof]

The free speech argument is the one specific to the organization of the district. The others are related to the land development agreement and covenants. The free speech argument is the big one that would undo everything.

I agree with this 100%. If Disney wins on 1st amendment violations then RCID is returned to its original status at least for now. The contract issues are less important in that case, but for future actions it’s still important to establish the legality of the government attempting to void a legal contract. Not as critical for Disney if they win the big ones but still important for society.

 

[LAKid53]

For sure. I think that is also why the free speech aspects are #4 and #5 on the list. The other violations are even more clear cut to me. It’s very possible this end up whatever the legal term is for a “split decision” if Disney loses the 1A arguments.

Which I think would be an even more egregious ruling if that happens. Because that will give government carte blanche approval to retaliate against ANY speech it deems objectional, including protected speech.