Several posters here think like you do, but I’ll never understand it. For me, it’s a small world is one of the foundational attractions of Fantasyland, and I would hate to see it relocated.If they do this can they move IASW to EPCOT World Showcase where it belongs?
Yeah not sure it’s even possible to replicate, and I think 2 other reasons-It would be hard to fathom that the damage done to them in FL, regardless of how crazy the Governor and new board are, is so great as to make it even remotely worth considering something so extreme and so extremely expensive.
They’ve been building that place up for 50 years.
Correct, that’s not what I said, I’m aware of the first amendment. My comment was analyzing what is a consequence.Consequences cannot and should not ever come from the government. Please read the first amendment
I like it. But why move it? Build another EPCOTy IASW attraction in EPCOT.If they do this can they move IASW to EPCOT World Showcase where it belongs?
It’s exactly what you said. You were talking about the legal complaint. That’s only about government imposed consequences that you tried to justify with the same tired “special privledges” exception you think should exist.Correct, that’s not what I said, I’m aware of the first amendment. My comment was analyzing what is a consequence.
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.Then that’s not free speech.
Free speech is freedom of speech without government consequences.
Yes, someone shouldn’t expect government consequences for a racist message on their garage door.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.
No. I’m not trying to “justify” anything. I also didn’t state an opinion that I think something should or shouldn’t exist. I’m questioning how a court might view a unique privilege versus rights all businesses have. I stated my personal opinion that it seems like zealous over reach. I’m playing devils advocate and questioning the wording from a legal standpoint, which seems a little flimsy.It’s exactly what you said. You were talking about the legal complaint. That’s only about government imposed consequences that you tried to justify with the same tired “special privledges” exception you think should exist.
Don’t know what that means. Maybe not.You are not even paying attention are you?
All of your “questions” have been answered, many times.Don’t know what that means. Maybe not.
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.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.
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.All of your “questions” have been answered, many times.
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.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.
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 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.
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 already tried to peddle this “just asking questions” nonsense. It was the same thing of you defending the state and then denying it.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.
a unique privilege
Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.