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

[CaptainAmerica]

If the Board does anything that would negatively impact the terms of the contracts with owners, we'd have potentially have cause.

It would have to be concrete. Not vague claims about "diminished value" or whatever.

 

[Disney Analyst]

If that logic can be applied in this case then there is no free speech anymore. They are basically saying is if the Government decides that the political views are so unacceptable as to somehow cause public harm then it’s ok to ignore free speech and punish or retaliate. If the Supreme Court took this Disney case and then argued that line of thinking I think it would be devastating to the country. It would basically be there’s only free speech if you agree with whoever is in charge.

I also think it would prove the current theory that the Supreme Court is a deeply flawed and partisan branch that needs serious reforms.

 

[LAKid53]

It would have to be concrete. Not vague claims about "diminished value" or whatever.

It would have to materially affect the terms and conditions of the sales contracts. If value is specified in the sales contracts and the Board takes measures that effect that contractual value, there's grounds for cause. And it's up to a court to determine that. Nothing prevents owners from suing.

 

[Chi84]

There is plenty of free speech. As Scalia wrote in his dissent:

The First Amendment guarantees that you and I can say and believe whatever we like (subject to a few tradition based exceptions, such as obscenity and "fighting words") without going to jail or being fined. What it ought to guarantee beyond that is not at all the simple question the Court assumes.​

Scalia is looking at the original intent of the First Amendment, when British subjects were fined and imprisoned for their political views.

This is not the same as the government "subsidizing" (Scalia's word) views it does not agree with.

By changing the makeup of the RCID board, the State of Florida neither fined nor jailed Disney or its employees. Scalia, as an Originalist, reads restrictions on jailing and fining as the original intent of the First Amendment.

Let's consider the current interpretation of ex post facto laws, an interpretation understood by all justices in the United States.

The text of the Constitution states:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.​

The plain text reads "no ex post facto laws". Period. No conditions. No exceptions. As worded, it's absolute.

No U.S. Court interprets it this way.

The universal interpretation by all U.S. Courts is that, per Calder, ex post facto law restrictions only apply to criminal punishments, specifically increased fines and imprisonment. (Conversely, ex post facto laws can be applied to civil matters, or can reduce punishments.)

The opinion Scalia expressed in his dissent of O'Hare Truck Service is consistent with the universal interpretation of ex post facto laws.

Jailing and fining was most egregious and therefore what needed to be addressed at the time. But the world has changed. I don’t think they would have been okay with closing down a business, evicting a person from their house, subjecting the person or business to government harassment, etc.

 

[GoofGoof]

There is plenty of free speech. As Scalia wrote in his dissent:

The First Amendment guarantees that you and I can say and believe whatever we like (subject to a few tradition based exceptions, such as obscenity and "fighting words") without going to jail or being fined. What it ought to guarantee beyond that is not at all the simple question the Court assumes.​

Scalia is looking at the original intent of the First Amendment, when British subjects were fined and imprisoned for their political views.

This is not the same as the government "subsidizing" (Scalia's word) views it does not agree with.

By changing the makeup of the RCID board, the State of Florida neither fined nor jailed Disney or its employees. Scalia, as an Originalist, reads restrictions on jailing and fining as the original intent of the First Amendment.

Let's consider the current interpretation of ex post facto laws, an interpretation understood by all justices in the United States.

The text of the Constitution states:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.​

The plain text reads "no ex post facto laws". Period. No conditions. No exceptions. As worded, it's absolute.

No U.S. Court interprets it this way.

The universal interpretation by all U.S. Courts is that, per Calder, ex post facto law restrictions only apply to criminal punishments, specifically increased fines and imprisonment. (Conversely, ex post facto laws can be applied to civil matters, or can reduce punishments.)

The opinion Scalia expressed in his dissent of O'Hare Truck Service is consistent with the universal interpretation of ex post facto laws.

Ok so not “no free speech” at all, but he’s saying the only thing you are protected against is a fine or imprisonment. That’s some grim stuff. So the Government is free to retaliate in any other way against anyone who opposes them just not with a fine or throwing you in jail.

 

[LAKid53]

To be clear, I was just being snarky.

But...

Disney does not pay Florida state and local taxes using revenue it collects from, for example, toy sales in Massachusetts. Disney does not eat the cost of those taxes from its general funds.

Instead, Disney pays those taxes from revenue it collects from you and I when we visit WDW.

If the state increases taxes, Disney does not eat the cost. Instead, they raise their prices and pass the cost onto us.

So, yes, ultimately, we are the ones who pay these taxes.

I know that.

And I know how sales tax is collected and paid, along with corporate income tax.

Disney pays Florida corporate income tax based on revenues earned in Florida.

We all pay the income tax of corporations when we purchase a commodity or service.

But I'd rather not get too deep into tax accounting in this thread. I'm retired...too much like work.

 

[mikejs78]

Let's look more closely at the case referenced by David French in his New York Times article, "Disney v. DeSantis, How Strong Is the Company's Lawsuit?"

In O'Hare Truck Service v the City of Northlake, Associate Justice Kennedy wrote the 7-2 majority opinion. The majority included historically liberal Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer. Kennedy himself was a swing vote. For example, Kennedy was the deciding vote in Obergefell v. Hodges, which ruled in favor of same-sex marriages. O'Connor also joined the majority, and she is largely viewed as having shifted from more conservative at the start of her term to more liberal by the end.

However, the Court's two most conservative justices, Scalia and Thomas, dissented. In their dissent, Scalia wrote:

The First Amendment guarantees that you and I can say and believe whatever we like (subject to a few tradition based exceptions, such as obscenity and "fighting words") without going to jail or being fined. What it ought [original emphasis] to guarantee beyond that is not at all the simple question the Court assumes. The ability to discourage eccentric views through the mild means that have historically been employed, and that the Court has now set its face against, may well be important to social cohesion. To take an uncomfortable example from real life: An organization (I shall call it the White Aryan Supremacist Party, though that was not the organization involved in the actual incident I have in mind) is undoubtedly entitled, under the Constitution, to maintain and propagate racist and antisemitic views. But when the Department of Housing and Urban Development lets out contracts to private security forces to maintain law and order in units of public housing, must it really treat this bidder the same as all others? Or may it determine that the views of this organization are not political views that it wishes to "subsidize" with public funds, nor political views that it wishes to hold up as an exemplar of the law to the residents of public housing?​

The question then becomes, is the Supreme Court of 2023 more like Scalia and Thomas, or is it more like Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kennedy, and O'Connor?

David French, the NYT author, has been attacking DeSantis since the fight with Disney began. (For example, see this Washington Post article.) This doesn't make French wrong, but I respectfully suggest looking more closely at articles to understand where the author is coming from and what they are not telling you.

In this post, I provided a more detailed analysis of this case from a First Amendment perspective, focusing on the current makeup of the Supreme Court and their propensity to overturn liberal precedent. IMO, Disney has a strong contract case, but any First Amendment decision will require winning over two conservative justices.

You missed Renquist, who also voted with the majority, and was usually a reliable conservative but not as much so as Scalia and Thomas. So the majority was four liberals, two moderates, and a conservative, with two conservatives dissenting.

I'm assuming that Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson would side with Disney. I think it's also a pretty safe bet that Roberts will as well - he is very much a believer in stare decisis, so he will go along with Citizens and O'Hare, and I think will vote in Disney's favor. Alito and Thomas will not, making it 4-2.

That leaves Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Gorsuch is more of a libertarian - he wrote the majority opinion in Bostock, for example, which extended the civil rights act to include sexual orientation. Kavanaugh's record tends to show an expansive view of the first amendment, especially for corporations; and Barrett has usually sided more with Roberts and Kavanaugh than Alito and Thomas.

I still see this as a 7-2 or 6-3 decision if it reaches the supreme court.

 

[GoofGoof]

I also think it would prove the current theory that the Supreme Court is a deeply flawed and partisan branch that needs serious reforms.

I’m not so sure the Court even wants to open that can of worms anyway. Just because there is a conservative majority doesn’t mean they will do whatever DeSantis wants because he’s a Republican. It doesn’t work that way. I also think they’d be smart enough to realize almost half the states and the Federal government are currently run by the other side so allowing this activity to go unchecked would open up conservatives to persecution by liberal governments as well.

 

[Tha Realest]

I keep hearing how “big donors” are moving away from Desantis because of the Disney thing. Can someone please show me how multiple donors have moved on from him because of this?

 

[GoofGoof]

I know that.

And I know how sales tax is collected and paid, along with corporate income tax.

Disney pays Florida corporate income tax based on revenues earned in Florida.

We all pay the income tax of corporations when we purchase a commodity or service.

But I'd rather not get too deep into tax accounting in this thread. I'm retired...too much like work.

Even their revenue in FL is not all from WDW. Some comes from cruises, some from Disney+ subscribers, some from ESPN, etc, etc

 

[Tha Realest]

Even their revenue in FL is not all from WDW. Some comes from cruises, some from Disney+ subscribers, some from ESPN, etc, etc

It’s also a California-based company. FL would have no claim on non FL-based revenue sources.

 

[LAKid53]

I’m not so sure the Court even wants to open that can of worms anyway. Just because there is a conservative majority doesn’t mean they will do whatever DeSantis wants because he’s a Republican. It doesn’t work that way. I also think they’d be smart enough to realize almost half the states and the Federal government are currently run by the other side so allowing this activity to go unchecked would open up conservatives to persecution by liberal governments as well.

I'm not sure SCOTUS would accept the case.

 

[Chi84]

I keep hearing how “big donors” are moving away from Desantis because of the Disney thing. Can someone please show me how multiple donors have moved on from him because of this?

It’s not the only reason - I don’t think it’s the main one - but it is mentioned.

'I think he's in trouble': Growing number of Ron DeSantis donors and allies hope for a shake-up

As he gets ready to jump into the 2024 presidential race, the Florida governor is sticking with his strategy of putting culture wars front and center.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[LAKid53]

It’s also a California-based company. FL would have no claim on non FL-based revenue sources.

Correct. And no one is saying the state does.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

There is plenty of free speech. As Scalia wrote in his dissent:

The First Amendment guarantees that you and I can say and believe whatever we like (subject to a few tradition based exceptions, such as obscenity and "fighting words") without going to jail or being fined. What it ought to guarantee beyond that is not at all the simple question the Court assumes.​

Scalia is looking at the original intent of the First Amendment, when British subjects were fined and imprisoned for their political views.

This is not the same as the government "subsidizing" (Scalia's word) views it does not agree with.

By changing the makeup of the RCID board, the State of Florida neither fined nor jailed Disney or its employees. Scalia, as an Originalist, reads restrictions on jailing and fining as the original intent of the First Amendment.

Let's consider the current interpretation of ex post facto laws, an interpretation understood by all justices in the United States.

The text of the Constitution states:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.​

The plain text reads "no ex post facto laws". Period. No conditions. No exceptions. As worded, it's absolute.

No U.S. Court interprets it this way.

The universal interpretation by all U.S. Courts is that, per Calder, ex post facto law restrictions only apply to criminal punishments, specifically increased fines and imprisonment. (Conversely, ex post facto laws can be applied to civil matters, or can reduce punishments.)

The opinion Scalia expressed in his dissent of O'Hare Truck Service is consistent with the universal interpretation of ex post facto laws.

What exact “dissent” of Scalia are you quoting

Cause he wrote the majority opinion on the case that granted corporations a “mind and soul” and the ability to speak freely with their wallets

 

[GoofGoof]

It’s not the only reason - I don’t think it’s the main one - but it is mentioned.

'I think he's in trouble': Growing number of Ron DeSantis donors and allies hope for a shake-up

As he gets ready to jump into the 2024 presidential race, the Florida governor is sticking with his strategy of putting culture wars front and center.

www.nbcnews.com

I posted one a few pages back as well with another donor saying it factored into his decision to pull back. Poor decisions in general of which this is just one of many.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I'm not sure SCOTUS would accept the case.

The scotus would only except if Disney has lost a circuit ruling…which is unlikely

They could remand it back to them and end it

 

[LAKid53]

Even their revenue in FL is not all from WDW. Some comes from cruises, some from Disney+ subscribers, some from ESPN, etc, etc

Disney's quarterly and annual reports will break down revenue earned from various divisions and geographic locations. Their SEC 10K will provide even more detail than an annual report.

 

[Chi84]

There’s reason I’ve got some folks on ignore already.

“Ignore” is an excellent option if someone provokes you to the point of insults or personal attacks.

Well-articulated and honest opinions need to be politely considered if you want true discussion to occur. At the very least it makes you examine your own position a bit more thoroughly.

 

[hopemax]

I don't use ignore because it reminds me about why the real world is trending the way it is. Despite the idiocy of some of the arguments, the fact that they're participating in the discussion means that even "our idiots" are more informed than a lot of people in the real word.