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

[lazyboy97o]

Don’t know what that means. Maybe not.

All of your “questions” have been answered, many times.

 

[Heath]

Your whole argument is flawed and demonstrates a lack of knowledge what the First Amendment is. There is ABSOLUTELY no GOVERNMENT consequences for exercising protected speech. Courts have repeatedly confirmed this. Courts have also said what is NOT protected speech.

That’s not what I said. I was questioning what is a consequence versus a privilege nobody else has. I.e I’d one takes away a unique privilege, is that a consequence? I wasn’t claiming a position. I see over reach but playing devils advocate. My assumption is everyone knows and agrees what the first amendment says.

 

[Heath]

All of your “questions” have been answered, many times.

If they were answered there wouldn’t be a court case with smart legal minds on different sides of the debate. But if your point is you know all the answers, then good job.

 

[peter11435]

That’s not what I said. I was questioning what is a consequence versus a privilege nobody else has. I.e I’d one takes away a unique privilege, is that a consequence? I wasn’t claiming a position. I see over reach but playing devils advocate. My assumption is everyone knows and agrees what the first amendment says.

RCID isn’t exactly unique in Florida. And the issue isn’t just taking it away. They have went beyond just dissolving RCID but instead taking over RCID and using it and other arms of the state government as weapons against Disney.

 

[Chi84]

If they were answered there wouldn’t be a court case with smart legal minds on different sides of the debate. But if your point is you know all the answers, then good job.

I don’t think that’s his point at all. This is a lengthy thread with tons of information and links to sources about what RCID is, why it was created, etc.

If you come in now and ask questions that show little understanding of what was discussed and hashed out earlier in the thread, it leads to starting all over again in terms of providing that information and the discussion ends up going in circles.

There’s no barrier to joining a thread late without reading all the previous posts, but the consequence is that someone may tell you that you’re missing information or misunderstanding something that’s been clarified earlier.

 

[LAKid53]

That’s not what I said. I was questioning what is a consequence versus a privilege nobody else has. I.e I’d one takes away a unique privilege, is that a consequence? I wasn’t claiming a position. I see over reach but playing devils advocate. My assumption is everyone knows and agrees what the first amendment says.

Disney’s lawsuit wording seems convoluted. “As punishment for ..free speech.” Just because one has right to free speech, doesn’t mean there isn’t consequences for free speech

You said it

 

[lazyboy97o]

If they were answered there wouldn’t be a court case with smart legal minds on different sides of the debate. But if your point is you know all the answers, then good job.

You already tried to peddle this “just asking questions” nonsense. It was the same thing of you defending the state and then denying it.

 

[mikejs78]

a unique privilege

As I said before, the premise of your question is wrong because this isn't a particularly unique privilege, but is in fact common in the state.

 

[mkt]

You pulled one sentence out and didn’t apply it to the context of what I wrote. I know what the first amendment is. My point is free speech is complex. Obviously one can’t put a racist message on their garage door and not expect a consequence. There are consequences for all our actions. I specifically questioned whether the “consequences” of a privilege being changed versus a right taken away as being “punishment” in a legal argument.

 

[Heath]

The point is in court of law, free speech can be more complex than just saying “read the First Amendment!” After that one sentence that you are extracting, I further tried expound , is one can’t go out in Tines Square like Bruce Willis in a sandwich board and say something offensive and there isn’t “consequences.” Building on that point in regard to government overreach, I made the point (first off that I DO personally believe it’s zealous government overreach) that the actual wording in the Disney argument seemed flimsy based on the the line, “punishing” for “free speech.” I was questioning from a legal definition of consequence versus a privilege nobody else has. I don’t think anyone’s inference or examination is “peddling” as I don’t claim to know the answers.

 

[LAKid53]

That’s not what I said. I was questioning what is a consequence versus a privilege nobody else has. I.e I’d one takes away a unique privilege, is that a consequence? I wasn’t claiming a position. I see over reach but playing devils advocate. My assumption is everyone knows and agrees what the first amendment says.

It doesn't matter if you think the special district is a privilege, not a right. That fact the the government, through its legislative power, decided IT would provide oversight for a PRIVATE corporation in retaliation for that private corporation exercising its constitutionally protected speech is the point. And that it could harm the corporation in the process and interfere with the corporation's operation of private property it owns. The board members have been repugnantly gleeful in their statements about "bringing Disney to task", "telling it what content the board will allow", etc. There's been court cases at both the state & federal level that have declared such behavior on the part of the government unconstitutional.

That you fail to grasp this important concept is an issue.

 

[LAKid53]

As I said before, the premise of your question is wrong because this isn't a particularly unique privilege, but is in fact common in the state.

To the tune of 1800+ of them....

 

[Heath]

As I said before, the premise of your question is wrong because this isn't a particularly unique privilege, but is in fact common in the state.

Got it. I don’t read every single previous comment, I often read an article then make a comment. I didn’t know any other entity has ever had self governing like capabilities or municipalities.

 

[lazyboy97o]

The point is in court of law, free speech can be more complex than just saying “read the First Amendment!” After that one sentence that you are extracting, I further tried expound , is one can’t go out in Tines Square like Bruce Willis in a sandwich board and say something offensive and there isn’t “consequences.” Building on that point in regard to government overreach, I made the point (first off that I DO personally believe it’s zealous government overreach) that the actual wording in the Disney argument seemed flimsy based on the the line, “punishing” for “free speech.” I was questioning from a legal definition of consequence versus a privilege nobody else has. I don’t think anyone’s inference or examination is “peddling” as I don’t claim to know the answers.

Your expounding keeps creating the conflation you claim not to be creating.

 

[LAKid53]

Got it. I don’t read every single previous comment, I often read an article then make a comment. I didn’t know any other entity has ever had self governing like capabilities or municipalities.

The Villages sits in a special district and has self governing privileges.

 

[castlecake2.0]

lilofan... king of ancedotia

May cats breath smells like cat food

 

[Heath]

Your expounding keeps creating the conflation you claim not to be creating.

I see it as playing devils advocate and free examination. A few remarked how there are other self governing status in the state. That’s engaging comments I appreciate that educate me.

 

[LAKid53]

You pulled one sentence out and didn’t apply it to the context of what I wrote. I know what the first amendment is. My point is free speech is complex. Obviously one can’t put a racist message on their garage door and not expect a consequence. There are consequences for all our actions. I specifically questioned whether the “consequences” of a privilege being changed versus a right taken away as being “punishment” in a legal argument.

One can certainly put a racist message on one's garage door and NOT expect consequences FROM THE GOVERNMENT. Your neighbors or the HOA may be a different matter.

 

[LAKid53]

If they were answered there wouldn’t be a court case with smart legal minds on different sides of the debate. But if your point is you know all the answers, then good job.

In this thread.

 

[DisneyHead123]

That’s nostalgia and no longer true. People like that are called RINO now. The new right has a different view on rights. It’s not that they don’t understand, they don’t want to understand and instead twist to mean something else. Thereby loosing the original meaning.

Hmm, had not heard the term RINO before, guess I am not up on the pop culture on that one.