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

[mikejs78]

Yes, but the First Amendment doesn't mean what it literally means.

Take, for example, something as apparently simple as "freedom of speech":

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.​

As we all understand, there are limitations on free speech, even though this is not stated in the text. Some forms of speech are not protected. Congress can pass some laws limiting speech.

Similarly, and as I've previously described, for 200 years corporate political speech rights were more limited than individual political speech rights. Corporate political speech rights have changed, and relatively recently.

There are hundreds of court cases refining free speech. It's an incredibly complex subject..

Thanks for making my point.

The First Amendment does not mention “protected speech”.

Free Speech is much more complex than just the text in the Constitution.

You're right of course about it being nuanced. But the topic at hand is political speech, which is probably the most protected from of speech given that the original intent of 1A was to protect political speech, and political speech has always had the highest form of scrutiny in the courts, especially around the realm of stating a political opinion or advocating for or against a piece of legislation. Where there has been disagreement and questions around political speech is in cases where speech went beyond mere words (e.g. flag burning) or in the financial realm (e.g. Citizens).

I also don't agree with the assertion that corporate political speech rights were more limited for 200 years. Most of the court cases dealing with corporate speech before the 1970s dealt with non-political corporate speech (e.g. advertising), which even today courts have ruled only receive intermediate scrutiny. The fact is that corporate political speech rights were never really challenged in court until the 70s. So to say that corporate political speech rights didn't exist is not quite accurate - it's more accurate to say they hadn't been defined one way or another. Either way, Citizens was contentious because it dealt with money, or non-verbal speech. You can go all the way back to 1886, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, to see the court refer to the personhood of a corporation.

It's also worth noting that it wasn't until the 1930s that the supreme court started running on individual 1A cases and offering judicial protection - does that mean individuals were not afforded free speech rights until the 1930s? No, it just wasn't a question and it wasn't brought to suit because the nature of the country was different.

Citizens established the right of corporations in regards to campaign finance. But the right to express an opinion on issues by a corporation unrelated to finance, was established much earlier.

 

[GoofGoof]

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.



View attachment 713390

The actual lawyers may know better but these are part of the final case which may take months or years to complete.

In the meantime there is a mechanism for injunctive relief if the current actions of the board will cause irreparable harm, Disney is likely to succeed and the injunction won’t cause public harm. I assume this would be filed separate from the initial claim if the board passes some legislation that Disney opposes currently.

 

[GoofGoof]

If the District Court issues an injunction that doesn't void either Legislative bill, but halts any new action by the Board, other than the necessary day to day operations (the injunction should specify what it puts "on hold"), then the attempts by anyone covered under the injunction to circumvent it subjects that individual to a contempt charge.

^this is what I was trying to say in my armchair lawyer’s lingo

So does Disney need to file something asking for a preliminary injunction? I didn’t see anything in the original document.

 

[GoofGoof]

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.

It’s a slippery slope all around. The district needs to continue operating. The board runs the district. I don’t think it’s possible to reinstate the original RCID board immediately. I think the best case scenario for Disney is a preliminary injunction that temporarily prevents the new board from changing anything going forward until the case is settled. All this stuff they keep voting on would be paused or reversed.

 

[mikejs78]

Hypothetical for all the attorneys (and armchair attorneys like myself). I can see a scenario where the court would rule that the legislation itself is constitutional (due to not being able to know the motive of every legislator, etc. that has been brought up before), but rule that DeSantis and the board are violating Disney's 1A rights in the manner they are carrying out said legislation, because it is clear that they are, in fact, retaliating for political speech.

In a ruling like that, what would the remedy be? Enforcing the development agreement is obvious in that case, but how does the court prevent further retaliation? What possible remedies can the court employ?

 

[Smiley/OCD]

I, also Canadian, stood as sign of respect for my “host country”, but did not recite the pledge. Long live the King!

Shouldn’t it be Long live Lilibet?

 

[flynnibus]

So does Disney need to file something asking for a preliminary injunction? I didn’t see anything in the original document.

Its there in the relief at the very end

There will be more process for scheduling etc

 

[Surferboy567]

How long does it take for injunctions to be granted?

 

[lazyboy97o]

How long does it take for injunctions to be granted?

It depends. You can seek emergency relieved very quickly for something that is imminent but for other things it can be weeks.

 

[Tha Realest]

Hypothetical for all the attorneys (and armchair attorneys like myself). I can see a scenario where the court would rule that the legislation itself is constitutional (due to not being able to know the motive of every legislator, etc. that has been brought up before), but rule that DeSantis and the board are violating Disney's 1A rights in the manner they are carrying out said legislation, because it is clear that they are, in fact, retaliating for political speech.

In a ruling like that, what would the remedy be? Enforcing the development agreement is obvious in that case, but how does the court prevent further retaliation? What possible remedies can the court employ?

That’s what I am getting at in terms of the appropriate remedy. The court can rule acts (both legislative and executive) unconstitutional. Can they order a legislature to pass a new act? Now you’re getting into separation of powers issues. Keeping the current composition of the board in place and having them execute current contracts is problematic, as @lazyboy97o suggests, as it still leaves a lot of potential for mischief within the bounds of their current parameters.

Point being, there are a lot of past, current, and future acts (legislative, executive, and board driven) that have to be contemplated here.

 

[GoofGoof]

Its there in the relief at the very end

There will be more process for scheduling etc

Don’t those overturn the bills that dissolved RCID and the one that amended the makeup of the board? So if a judge issued preliminary or immediate injunctive relief based on those would they actually reinstate the old RCID board? Almost like a reboot. I’m out of my element on the legal stuff so maybe way off base, but I assumed there would be an intermediate step where the current board stays but they are frozen from making new changes to the district rules until a final judgement.

 

[drnilescrane]

It depends. You can seek emergency relieved very quickly for something that is imminent but for other things it can be weeks.

I was looking at the timeline of HONEYFUND.COM INC et al v. DESANTIS et al, i.e. the Stop Woke act lawsuit presided over by Walker.

It took them about a week from filing to ask for a Preliminary Injunction, a week after that to set a hearing date for a month out, then another week for the judge to rule.

 

[LAKid53]

Shouldn’t it be Long live Lilibet?

At least as long as her great grandmother

 

[LAKid53]

I was looking at the timeline of HONEYFUND.COM INC et al v. DESANTIS et al, i.e. the Stop Woke act lawsuit presided over by Walker.

It took them about a week from filing to ask for a Preliminary Injunction, a week after that to set a hearing date for a month out, then another week for the judge to rule.

Emergency injunctions can happen much sooner as they are meant to halt damage to the affected party immediately.

 

[drnilescrane]

Emergency injunctions can happen much sooner as they are meant to halt damage to the affected party immediately.

Of course, but I don't think Disney's going to go down that route. Nothing the board has done so far has caused immediate *this needs to be stopped today* harm.

 

[GoofGoof]

I was looking at the timeline of HONEYFUND.COM INC et al v. DESANTIS et al, i.e. the Stop Woke act lawsuit presided over by Walker.

It took them about a week from filing to ask for a Preliminary Injunction, a week after that to set a hearing date for a month out, then another week for the judge to rule.

This is good info. If I’m not mistaken in that case the preliminary injunction paused the law from going into effect while the final decision was made. I wonder if this will work the same.

Emergency injunctions can happen much sooner as they are meant to halt damage to the affected party immediately.

So far the board hasn’t actually taken action to cause immediate damage, but I wonder if these upcoming meetings will result in an action deemed to be an immediate and irreparable damage. They could be shooting themselves in the foot and giving Disney more ammo.

 

[lazyboy97o]

That’s what I am getting at in terms of the appropriate remedy. The court can rule acts (both legislative and executive) unconstitutional. Can they order a legislature to pass a new act?

Why would the court need to require new legislation?

 

[LAKid53]

That’s what I am getting at in terms of the appropriate remedy. The court can rule acts (both legislative and executive) unconstitutional. Can they order a legislature to pass a new act? Now you’re getting into separation of powers issues. Keeping the current composition of the board in place and having them execute current contracts is problematic, as @lazyboy97o suggests, as it still leaves a lot of potential for mischief within the bounds of their current parameters.

Point being, there are a lot of past, current, and future acts (legislative, executive, and board driven) that have to be contemplated here.

They sure are.

However, if the court grants the full relief Disney is seeking, the current Board no longer exists and the state's case is unsubstantiated. It's all going to depend on what the ruling says. And the state WILL appeal the ruling if it's in Disney's favor.

If after all the appeals are exhausted and the state lost on the merits of its case, the Court won't be happy if it tries the same again.

 

[LAKid53]

Of course, but I don't think Disney's going to go down that route. Nothing the board has done so far has caused immediate *this needs to be stopped today* harm.

Disney may be waiting for the outcome of the next Board meeting.

 

[Disstevefan1]

Moving Disney World is not realistic.

The lawsuit was the last resort. They didn’t actually have another option.

I had a strange thought. When Walt Decided to build Disneyland everyone around him thought he was crazy and it would never work and would cost too much. Walt didn’t care what everyone thought or how much money it would cost. He had a vision.

Is history repeating itself? The modern Disney Company has a vision and as we see does not care how much it costs. TWDC is willing to lose hundreds of millions because they have a vision.

Is it so far fetched for the modern Disney company to do the impossible again and move Walt Disney World and change it’s name to Disney World?