I'll take your comments in good faith. To just respond to a few:
True. There are different levels that have been applied to different types of speech in the course of American history by the courts. However, one type of speech that has consistently been upheld with the highest form of protection is specifically
political speech - that is, speech for or against a bill, an opinion on a specific issue, or support for or against a candidate. The courts have always held this to the highest scrutiny because it was particiularly political speech that the founders were concerned about when they wrote the first amendment.
Disney's current situation is a direct result of political speech - they advocated against an issue that had been passed by the legislature, and commented that they would work to change that law, which is their right.
The issue now is that various forms of retaliation have been made against Disney:
- First, they attempted to dissolve the district, which would have returned Disney to be under county jurisdiction.
- Then they figured out that that wouldn't work, because there were too many financial problems associated with doing that.
- So next they decided to create a state takeover of the district, keeping the same powers, but under the thumb of political appointees of Ron DeSantis, who have explicitly stated that they wanted to use the power of the board (i.e. the power of government) to get Disney to modify its content and produce movies/TV shows/rides that were acceptable to the governor.
- When they realized that Disney had entered into a legal contract to lock in zoning for 30 years, and lock in other covenants on what could be built on their property until the death of the last surviving member of King Charles, the state and board decided to punish Disney - by adding new inspections that no other theme park has to have, voiding a legal contract (which is also unconstitutional), and institute regulations to make Disney's life difficult - just because they had an opinion that differed from the governors.
So yes, while speech has consequences, and not all speech is at the same level, political speech is most certainly protected. The only question for Disney is can they prove retaliation, and based on the comments made by the governor and numerous state legislators, Disney's case looks pretty good.
If not punishing free speech, what would you call it? Again, it's not just dissolving the district - it's putting a new oversight board that applies only to Disney, and using that board to place burdens on Disney that no one else has.
As I said before, and to expound on it, numerous entities within FL have self-governing special districts. The Villages (a private development) was mentioned before. Unviersal Studios has part of its properties in a special district, and they are in the process of expanding and adding a new special district so they can build more infrastructure. The Daytona Beach racecourse is within a special district. Special districts in FL are generally used as a way of providing economic or community development, allowing private organizations flexibility and a degree of control over the buildout of infrastructure and services. In exchange, the private companies/developers fund the projects through additional taxes to the district. It's not a special priviledge, but something readily available as part of Florida law for any developer who wants it and can present a good case for having one.
