We probably need to see the actual text to know what exactly is being proposed. Based on past comments, my guess is they recognize that messing with daily operations is their best path to inflict pain.
Freedom of speech is not freedom from all consequences. That’s absolutely true. It is freedom from Government imposed consequences. A KKK group has the right to gather and speak. The Government cannot stop them from speaking even if their words are hateful. However, a group of counter protesters also has every right to show up and drown out the words of those people. Freedom of Speech protects them against the government stopping them from assembling or speaking it doesn’t protect them from fellow citizens drowning out their words with their own protected speech. It also doesn’t protect them from people posting their picture on Facebook and outing them as a KKK member. Those are some possible consequences of free speech but none are government imposed.
Without seeing all the details, I assume they want a new appointee that can take actions. Probably someone appointed by the board, or a board member, instead of a career position. That would be the best way to create leverage.
Free Speech may be complex and this case is certainly complex, but what we were talking about is a failure to understand the basic concept, not failure to understand a nuance that could be debatable.
I wonder if this is intended for things like the Covid restrictions policy. We all speculated how exactly the district would enforce a violation of their “no Covid safety measures allowed” policy. Maybe this is it. If Disney tries to ignore that policy these people come in and shut them down.
I think that’s why the first step may be the judge putting in an injunction or whatever the appropriate legal term is to stop everything happening right now until the case can be heard. The injunction would essentially put all of the actions of the current board on hold and allow the current district to continue its administrative role that has to continue. The district can continue its business as usual until the judge decides what to do with the board. I would assume that injunction would leave the development agreement in place for now which would prohibit the board from interfering with Disney’s business. Once the case is decided either the board continues as is now or is reverted back to RCID.
I don’t know if there’s a separate motion for injunctive relief apart from the prayer for relief. This is what’s at the end of the complaint.
I agree. The “injunction” I was referring to would be around new board actions taken. The district would still have to be allowed to enforce fire codes, run EMS, maintain roads, provide electricity and water/sewer services as well as monitor preserved wetlands and anything else that is current essential RCID business. What I assume they could pause is new actions and changes to policy.
This is where the scope of how the district court deals with this will be interesting. Does it find the original act undoing the RCID unconstitutional, invalidating all that came after it? Then you have the appeals process. And what if the 11th Cir reverses? Then you have a SCOTUS appeal but also the prospect of dealing with the remaining issues in the meantime. Do you have a schism in terms of which board believes it’s the “true” power (RCID vs CFTOD)? All this will be occurring while the current board (and state legislature) continues to act. I don’t get the sense the legislature will stop just because the court is issuing orders.
The complaint can be amended to deal with new developments.
But these actions would still have to be done with some level of input from the Board. The ability to harass would still exist.
I don’t know…probably cause the business world doesn’t care about making Disney “look better” like we do in the sandbox here?
