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

[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.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

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.

If Disney wins on 1A grounds and everything downstream of the original legislation is nullified, the judge is unlikely to rule on the merits of the subsequent claims.

 

[JAB]

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.

Exactly. In a case where government officials openly admit - on the record - that legislation was retaliatory, a ruling in favor of the state would seem to say that not only is it okay for the government to retaliate against protected speech they don't like, they can also brag about it afterwards.

What judge/court wants to be the one to set that precedent?

 

[seascape]

And in a federal venue, how much will Disney be allowed to argue that these changes violate state law and the state constitution?

The Disney case is a federal case. State laws do not matter here. The US Constitution is the Supreme Law in the US and Federal Law trumps State Laws. DeSantis will lose in court since the February bill not only is direct retaliation to Disney Constitution right to free speech. The February bill allows a Board solely appointed by the Governor to set all sorts of land use requirements on Disney while not allowing any representation of the landowners or residents. If I remember correctly there was a revolution over taxation without representation somewhere in the world. If DeSantis only kept the first bill Florida could have won as Disney would be under the jurisdiction of the Counties as every other development is. Further if the State of Florida wanted they could pass a law giving all regulations of themeparks to the state but that would only subject the parks and not the resorts or Disney Springs. Florida can't pass a law which only puts Disney under a harmful set of rules while allowing their competitors to be free. That is called crony capitalism. The government should never be allowed to pick winners and the RCID is not an advantage to Disney except that they are allowed to build and pay for better roads, utilities and safety standards and end up with the Disney bubble.

Finally, where is the safest place in Florida to ride put a hurricane? Every Florida resident knows it WDW. The DeSantis Board has called for crappy state run themepark inspections, lower road construction and safety standandard for roads and forget the bubble because the Florida DOT doesn't care about beauty. Think of what the board said, if the DA is allowed to stand all they will have control of is the roads, utilities and basic infrastructure. I thought that was all the local government was ever supposed to do.

The DeSantis board must go. No governor should be allowed to dictate what you or I do with our own property as long as it doesn't harm someone else. But DeSantis and this crop of Republicans have no problem doing exactly that. It make me upset as a Republican. I used to think all Republicans had the basic belief of freedom but not Florida Republicans. Please prove me wrong. I will be at the meeting Monday. I will tell the Board how wrong they are and how they and DeSantis are ruining the Republican Party. I know it's a waste of my time but someone has to stand up for what is right and just. Please, everyone who really cares about WDW come and speak. Tell the Board to admit they were wrong and the bubble is important. Let Disney be Disney even is we don't agree politically.

 

[Chi84]

One tricky aspect of the upcoming argument is that regardless of what started this, does the government have a legitimate interest in regulating a large private land development?

Yes, we know what brought RCID to DeSantis’ attention but, once it was brought to his attention, does the State of Florida have a valid reason for overseeing RCID?

This is where the judge you draw is critical. Some will view this as a clear violation of Disney’s protected rights. With Judge Walker assigned to the case, it’s 100% certain that this is how he will rule. Disney has already won the initial round before it even starts.

Others will say that regardless of what started this, Florida has a legitimate reason for overseeing RCID. This is where seeing what justices are assigned on appeal is crucial.

This is more complex than calling balls and strikes at a baseball game (to use Chief Justice Roberts’ analogy). There often are valid conflicting arguments, and a judge has to balance these using their own interpretation of which should be given more weight.

Ever since the Harry Reid nuked the 60 Vote Rule in 2013, federal judges generally are more partisan than they were previously.

It’s important to note that Judge Walker was confirmed unanimously before the rule change, so no one can accuse him of bias.

However, the same won’t necessarily be true on appeal.

Disney actually covered this is pars. 131-137 of its complaint and in its statement immediately after the Board was announced. It said it had worked with the RCID board for over 50 years and expected to continue a good relationship with the new board. Then the new board showed its real purpose, making the current litigation necessary.

 

[danlb_2000]

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.

No law can literally restrict speech, it can only punish for that speech.

 

[Andrew C]

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."

The speaker is smart...

 

[seascape]

One tricky aspect of the upcoming argument is that regardless of what started this, does the government have a legitimate interest in regulating a large private land development?

Yes, we know what brought RCID to DeSantis’ attention but, once it was brought to his attention, does the State of Florida have a valid reason for overseeing RCID?

This is where the judge you draw is critical. Some will view this as a clear violation of Disney’s protected rights. With Judge Walker assigned to the case, it’s 100% certain that this is how he will rule. Disney has already won the initial round before it even starts.

Others will say that regardless of what started this, Florida has a legitimate reason for overseeing RCID. This is where seeing what justices are assigned on appeal is crucial.

This is more complex than calling balls and strikes at a baseball game (to use Chief Justice Roberts’ analogy). There often are valid conflicting arguments, and a judge has to balance these using their own interpretation of which should be given more weight.

Ever since the Harry Reid nuked the 60 Vote Rule in 2013, federal judges generally are more partisan than they were previously.

It’s important to note that Judge Walker was confirmed unanimously before the rule change, so no one can accuse him of bias.

However, the same won’t necessarily be true on appeal.

I agree with you on this. That is why I believe the best case Florida can present is the first bill was constitutional. Disney does not have the constitutional right to their own government. They need to follow the same rules and regulations as Universal, SeaWorld and others. They need to follow the sames rules as other hotel and restaurants and shopping centers. Where Florida loses is they want more and that is why the February bill has no chance of survival. It went too far in taking control of WDW. The only 3 possible outcomes I can see. First, the original bill stands, the RCID is dissolved and the debt is given to the counties but the State pays the bill in a new bill. Second, Disney wins everything and the RCID is restored as it was. Third, Disney decides to end the district voluntarily, pays the bonds and goes under the jurisdiction of the Counties, which of course want to work with Disney for development, jobs and taxes. Disney doesn't need the RCID but it is still beneficial for the counties and does give us the Disney bubble.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Disney actually covered this is pars. 131-137 of its complaint and in its statement immediately after the Board was announced. It said it had worked with the RCID board for over 50 years and expected to continue a good relationship with the new board. Then the new board showed its real purpose, making the current litigation necessary.

But there is no guarantee or right to cooperative local officials. The decision of who sits on the board, if the change is considered valid, are more of a state issue.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I agree with you on this. That is why I believe the best case Florida can present is the first bill was constitutional. Disney does not have the constitutional right to their own government. They need to follow the same rules and regulations as Universal, SeaWorld and others. They need to follow the sames rules as other hotel and restaurants and shopping centers. Where Florida loses is they want more and that is why the February bill has no chance of survival. It went too far in taking control of WDW. The only 3 possible outcomes I can see. First, the original bill stands, the RCID is dissolved and the debt is given to the counties but the State pays the bill in a new bill. Second, Disney wins everything and the RCID is restored as it was. Third, Disney decides to end the district voluntarily, pays the bonds and goes under the jurisdiction of the Counties, which of course want to work with Disney for development, jobs and taxes. Disney doesn't need the RCID but it is still beneficial for the counties and does give us the Disney bubble.

There is no outcome of this litigation where Disney’s operating facilities fall under the jurisdiction of the counties. Bay Lake and Lake Buena Vista still exist.

And can we stop with this “same rules” nonsense? Universal doesn’t even follow the same rules as Universal because they now operate in two different jurisdictions. Local rules are the rules that are different. Disney as a business wasn’t exempt from state rules.

 

[Disorbust]

But DeSantis and this crop of Republicans have no problem doing exactly that. It make me upset as a Republican. I used to think all Republicans had the basic belief of freedom but not Florida Republicans. Please prove me wrong. I will be at the meeting Monday. I will tell the Board how wrong they are and how they and DeSantis are ruining the Republican Party. I know it's a waste of my time but someone has to stand up for what is right and just

Thank you for posting this. It gives me some hope that the Republican Party will become healthy again in the future.

 

[Heppenheimer]

The Disney case is a federal case. State laws do not matter here. The US Constitution is the Supreme Law in the US and Federal Law trumps State Laws. DeSantis will lose in court since the February bill not only is direct retaliation to Disney Constitution right to free speech. The February bill allows a Board solely appointed by the Governor to set all sorts of land use requirements on Disney while not allowing any representation of the landowners or residents. If I remember correctly there was a revolution over taxation without representation somewhere in the world. If DeSantis only kept the first bill Florida could have won as Disney would be under the jurisdiction of the Counties as every other development is. Further if the State of Florida wanted they could pass a law giving all regulations of themeparks to the state but that would only subject the parks and not the resorts or Disney Springs. Florida can't pass a law which only puts Disney under a harmful set of rules while allowing their competitors to be free. That is called crony capitalism. The government should never be allowed to pick winners and the RCID is not an advantage to Disney except that they are allowed to build and pay for better roads, utilities and safety standards and end up with the Disney bubble.

Finally, where is the safest place in Florida to ride put a hurricane? Every Florida resident knows it WDW. The DeSantis Board has called for crappy state run themepark inspections, lower road construction and safety standandard for roads and forget the bubble because the Florida DOT doesn't care about beauty. Think of what the board said, if the DA is allowed to stand all they will have control of is the roads, utilities and basic infrastructure. I thought that was all the local government was ever supposed to do.

The DeSantis board must go. No governor should be allowed to dictate what you or I do with our own property as long as it doesn't harm someone else. But DeSantis and this crop of Republicans have no problem doing exactly that. It make me upset as a Republican. I used to think all Republicans had the basic belief of freedom but not Florida Republicans. Please prove me wrong. I will be at the meeting Monday. I will tell the Board how wrong they are and how they and DeSantis are ruining the Republican Party. I know it's a waste of my time but someone has to stand up for what is right and just. Please, everyone who really cares about WDW come and speak. Tell the Board to admit they were wrong and the bubble is important. Let Disney be Disney even is we don't agree politically.

If I lived in Florida, I would join you.

I'd like to believe at least some of the Republican Party I was once a member of still exists.

 

[mmascari]

does the government have a legitimate interest in regulating a large private land development?

does the State of Florida have a valid reason for overseeing RCID?

Those are two different statements of oversight.

But, in either case I would ask if there is any example of an oversight that the existence of RCID prevents?

It's not like roads in RCID can just ignore all FDOT regulations. So, the state is already providing oversight.

Likewise for environmental impacts.

RCID does provide oversight of stuff like what is built where within the district. Is there some state oversight required for the same topic? Is there any other location within the state where they provide this oversight? For that matter, if the state should be providing that oversight, they should be providing it everywhere within the state not just in this one district.

Which brings us back to the original question. Is there any state wide oversight concern that that the existence of RCID restricts or interferes with?