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

[GoofGoof]

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.

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.

So getting back to Disney vs DeSantis. It is a clear and indisputable violation of the First Amendment of the constitution if Governor DeSantis used the power of the Government of the State of FL to punish Disney for speaking out against the original bill that started this. That everyone should be able to agree on 100%. No exceptions. There is no “free speech has consequences” so they got what they deserved. The nuance comes in with proving that DeSantis used the power to punish Disney and that punishment was for speaking out politically. That’s what the courts will decide. That’s where the debate is. There’s no debate that if he did punish them then it’s a violation.

 

[GoofGoof]

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.

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.

 

[hopemax]

Don’t make the assumption that a better Civics education will make better citizens. Based on what I know about the length of time they had been co-teaching it… I had the same Civics teachers as a former well-known, populist pundit on that certain cable news station. Every time he says something ridiculous, I say Mr. X and Mr Y must be rolling over in their graves. I consider my HS civics class one of the better classes I ever had in school. Certainly one of the most relevant to understanding what is happening today.

High school Civics can’t overcome the messaging coming from elsewhere, especially parents. Plus, there is a bunch of human psychology mixed in too. If you can make millions by saying the opposite of your education, eventually you start believing it. What is the Upton Sinclair quote about men, their salary and their understanding. At some point, if you have resources, ignorance is also a choice.

 

[GoofGoof]

There’s a lot of interesting aspects to this. IIRC, you have one bill that dissolves what was RCID. Another that creates the CFTOD. A series of contracts entered into. A series of actions that purports to invalidate those contracts. New legislation and acts by the board that continue. The need for both Disney and RCID/CFTOD to continue running operations.

point being, the courts and the parties are going to have to play whack a mole with all the evolving issues and legislative/executive/board actions.

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.

 

[lazyboy97o]

A federal judge would probably be out of line to issue an injunction preventing the board from doing things that would interfere with day-to-day operations such as enforcing the fire code.

 

[Tha Realest]

A federal judge would probably be out of line to issue an injunction preventing the board from doing things that would interfere with day-to-day operations such as enforcing the fire code.

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.

 

[GoofGoof]

A federal judge would probably be out of line to issue an injunction preventing the board from doing things that would interfere with day-to-day operations such as enforcing the fire code.

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.

 

[flynnibus]

Can we talk more about this citation role they’re creating? How come after 50 years all of a sudden they need a citation magistrate?

Because they said in an earlier meeting they found their rules had no teeth. Basically they had to way to punish non compliance they said

 

[Tha Realest]

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.

All while the world’s largest theme park is trying to do its day to day operations.

I don’t envy anyone in this situation.

 

[lazyboy97o]

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 complaint can be amended to deal with new developments.

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.

But these actions would still have to be done with some level of input from the Board. The ability to harass would still exist.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

How come no one ever deducts what they received from Comcast for the Sky shares they sold. Or better yet, the RSN'S the Feds made them sell that are now worthless.

I don’t know…probably cause the business world doesn’t care about making Disney “look better” like we do in the sandbox here?

 

[LAKid53]

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.

All while the world’s largest theme park is trying to do its day to day operations.

I don’t envy anyone in this situation.

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.

 

[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?