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

[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.

 

[Heath]

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 anissue.

 

[lazyboy97o]

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.

That information is in Disney’s complaint that you describe as flimsy…

 

[GoofGoof]

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.

I like it. But why move it? Build another EPCOTy IASW attraction in EPCOT.

Why not? As we will have several Moana attractions in multiple parks.

I hear you guys and don’t disagree on either point. IASW would be a perfect fit for the transition into World Showcase. It’s also perfectly fine in Fantasyland. I don’t think it’s an odd fit as is.

 

[Heath]

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.

True

 

[GoofGoof]

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.

Some case history was posted here earlier on the removal of a privilege. Courts have ruled that the removal of a perk that is not constitutionally protected can still be viewed as retaliation and therefore unconstitutional even if the Government would otherwise have the legal right to remove such a perk. The Court in that case is the same eleventh circuit appeals court that will hear this case should the outcome of the initial judge be appealed which it almost certainly will. Here is the post:

My 2 cents (if worth that) is that that is the wrong precedent for this lawsuit. Instead, the eleventh circuit’s ruling in Gwinnett County is more applicable. Here is the text from the very case they cite:

32 What our decision in Gwinnett County means, and whether it is distinguishable, is a question of law that we decide de novo. See Locke v. Shore, 634 F.3d 1185, 1191 (11th Cir. 2011). It is distinguishable. The facts of that case limit the holding of the decision to acts of governmental retaliation that explicitly single out a specific group. In that case, a school board adopted its superintendent’s recommendation to terminate the automatic payroll deduction of membership dues for members of the Georgia Association of Educators (GAE) and its local affiliate, the Gwinnett County Association of Educators (GCAE). 856 F.2d at 143–44. The recommendation came after the superintendent clashed with the GCAE over its representation of school system employees before the board and its affiliation with the National Education Association. Id. at 144 & n.1. The board members admitted that they had terminated the payroll dues deduction services for those reasons. Id. at 144. This Court held that — despite the fact that the teachers union had no constitutional right to automatic payroll deduction of membership dues — the county board of education could not deny the union’s members the benefit of that service as a “sanction[] for the expression of particular views it opposes.” Id. at 145 (quotation marks omitted).The crucial fact in Gwinnett County is that the school board did not adopt a generally applicable policy — it specifically singled out “GAE-GCAE members.”

 

[DisneyHead123]

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.

I agree with your opinion on the traditional right. I don’t think a lot of these people are traditional right. They embrace certain aspects of “conservative” but not all or even most. Just look at DeSantis. Hard to call him a traditional conservative.

I agree the catchphrase doesn't apply to the government, just saying, I think that's the psychology behind it. There was an underlying anger there and the human impulse to say "I'm rubber and you're glue!"

I do still think the "new" Right is quite libertarian - much more so than the traditional conservative Right. I think that position was cemented during Covid. So I don't buy that they just don't understand Freedom of Speech - I think, again, it's motivated reasoning or outright using the phrase facetiously. I think they are straying from their generally libertarian thinking on this one because the Right is increasingly becoming the populist party, and populist parties are generally defined as being in opposition to "a nefarious elite". I grew up in an impoverished area where this was the mindset and businesses or successful professionals were viewed with suspicion... the government didn't directly target them but let tort abuse run wild in order to play to the voters and be perceived as the hero targeted "the rich". I think people are kinda gobsmacked at DeSantis doing this because it's not a traditionally Republican stance - but honestly he may have his finger on the pulse more than some people realize. I'm not totally sure but I wouldn't rule it out - time will tell I guess.

 

[flynnibus]

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.

The user has over 40 posts in this thread -nearly all on this very topic of consequence or not... at what point do we just acknowledge it's not an access to information issue?

 

[Heath]

Some case history was posted here earlier on the removal of a privilege. Courts have ruled that the removal of a perk that is not constitutionally protected can still be viewed as retaliation and therefore unconstitutional even if the Government would otherwise have the legal right to remove such a perk. The Court in that case is the same eleventh circuit appeals court that will hear this case should the outcome of the initial judge be appealed which it almost certainly will. Here is the post:

Thank you very much for sharing