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

Tinkwings

Tinkwings

Pfizered Fairy
Premium Member
In the Parks
No
1681925549974.png
 
Dan Deesnee

Dan Deesnee

Well-Known Member
MandaM said:
The Supreme Court ruled corporations have the same rights as people in Citizens United.

Disney didn’t attack the government or governmental officials with the intent of doing harm. That’s utter nonsense. Disney exercised their constitutionally protected right to free speech by disagreeing with a bill.

The government is punishing Disney for their protected speech. That is a total violation of the 1st amendment. The Venn Diagram of people who support DeSantis’ actions and people who claim to hate censorship is mind-boggling. You’re either for freedom of speech or against it. If you’re for it, you can’t support DeSantis on this.
Click to expand...

To me it's pretty simple. Disney said they would do everything they could to make sure the law didn't go into effect. Florida then responded by taking away Disneys special privileges. If Disney's not going to support the Florida govt. then why would the Florida govt. support disney?

It seems petty, and I think personally BOTH sides could have handled this better.
 
M

MandaM

Well-Known Member
Creathir said:
What constitutional right do they have to subvert municipal law?

They can make a case they are being unfairly treated with the dissolution of the original district, but that has nothing to do with their attempts to upend municipal law in the State of Florida.

“It’s not fair! They are punishing us by making us play by the same rules as Universal!!!”

Yeah.. not going to fly…
Click to expand...
How did Disney subvert municipal law?
 
lentesta

lentesta

Premium Member
Dan Deesnee said:
The constitution doesn't say anything about corporations and was written that individuals have free speech. If a corporation verbally attacks with the intent to harm a government and sitting government individuals, I'm guessing that could be uncharted legal territory.
Click to expand...

I encourage you to call whatever university law school is closest to where you live, and ask them if what you said above is true. I'd love to hear their response.
 
T

Touchdown

Well-Known Member
Mr. Stay Puft said:
All due respect because I don't mean this to be personal and I do not want to divulge this conversation into a political shouting match, but I respectfully disagree with some of what you are saying. This isn't a policy disagreement over a typical right/left issue, like say taxes, this is about government abuse of power and placing a chilling effect on free speech, by the state.

Free speech is not absolute, just as any right is not absolute, but those consequences ARE NOT supposed to result in state retaliation for exercising that right. That is the heart of the matter here. And why all of this is gravely concerning that the state is even considering and attempting to do. And it's not even just that Disney is being targeted here. They are a big institution with resources, they can and will protect themselves. This is about the dangerous precedent it sets for this state, any state, or any presidential administration or Congress to do similar actions to chill speech in the future. If the state can do this to Disney, a powerful corportion, what chance do us regular people have against the state when it decides to target any one of us for dissenting? That's what terrifies me.

It's also very concerning that more people, especially those on the right whose entire philosophy is based on protecting individual rights, private property, and combating government overreach. Those principles seem to be completely thrown out in favor of enabking retaliation by the state in order to expand the state's powers over a private company, their physical property, intellectual property and content production, the infrastructure surrounding their property, their tax assements, and anything else the state has an interest in control over.

This is way beyond what a big government, socialist bending left wing person would even think of. This is something you'd only see in dysfunctional, mafia like narco failed state countries, or those with totalitarian forms of government. Not the US. This is completely contrarian to every value and principle our country supposedly stands for. And I'm a left leaning person who's skeptical of corporate power and favor some government oversight over the free market.

But this, this is completely off the rails and beyond the scope what even far-left but non-communist countries would do.
Click to expand...
There’s a word for what those people believe in and it’s not conservative or Republican. But they really hate it when they get labeled that. This is faschism, plain in simple. Read a dictionary:

“a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition”

If you support this you are supporting a faschist policy, plain and simple.

*However, that does not mean you are a Nazi, that is a flavor of faschism, all Nazis are faschists, not all faschists are Nazis*
 
JusticeDisney

JusticeDisney

Well-Known Member
Creathir said:
Let’s be honest here: Disney tried a last minute poison pill, it didn’t work, and further increased tensions between them and the incoming board.

Whatever chance of amicability that was there before, was completely destroyed by Disney trying to subvert the new incoming board.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes…
Click to expand...
It didn’t work? Wait. You think because DeSantis says the agreement is void that means it actually is?
 
M

MandaM

Well-Known Member
Dan Deesnee said:
To me it's pretty simple. Disney said they would do everything they could to make sure the law didn't go into effect. Florida then responded by taking away Disneys special privileges. If Disney's not going to support the Florida govt. then why would the Florida govt. support disney?

It seems petty, and I think personally BOTH sides could have handled this better.
Click to expand...
It is pretty simple. Disney has the right to express a political view. The government does not have the right to punish them for it. That’s not my opinion - that’s the Constitution’s. Take it up with the founders or the Supreme Court if you disagree.

It is petty. And unconstitutional.
 
Dan Deesnee

Dan Deesnee

Well-Known Member
MandaM said:
What you just described is a violation of the 1st amendment.

It is pretty simple. Disney has the right to express a political view. The government does not have the right to punish them for it. That’s not my opinion - that’s the Constitution’s. Take it up with the founders or the Supreme Court if you disagree.

It is petty. And unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

"Commercial speech is a form of protected communication under the First Amendment, but it does not receive as much free speech protection as forms of noncommercial speech."

There are many nuances to this. If this does go to court I can guarantee you that the court will not side with Disney based on a blanket "free speech" argument.
 
mkt

mkt

When a paradise is lost go straight to Disney™
Premium Member
Creathir said:
What constitutional right do they have to subvert municipal law?

They can make a case they are being unfairly treated with the dissolution of the original district, but that has nothing to do with their attempts to upend municipal law in the State of Florida.

“It’s not fair! They are punishing us by making us play by the same rules as Universal!!!”

Yeah.. not going to fly…
Click to expand...

You didn't read my post correctly.

They will have to assert their first and fourteenth amendment rights in court, and sue. Possibly fifth and ninth amendment as well, on top of a violation of Art 1/Sec 10.

And what was done to them isn't close to equal to Universal. Universal goes before the county and city, Disney has to go before a board that is actively acting against their interests.
 
mkt

mkt

When a paradise is lost go straight to Disney™
Premium Member
Dan Deesnee said:
"Commercial speech is a form of protected communication under the First Amendment, but it does not receive as much free speech protection as forms of noncommercial speech."

There are many nuances to this. If this does go to court I can guarantee you that the court will not side with Disney based on a blanket "free speech" argument.
Click to expand...
Context helps

Commercial speech refers to promotional speech, like an ad or a public relations press release. Not to a company saying they won't donate money to politicians because they disagree with their policies.

They'd likely win in court.
 
lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Creathir said:
What constitutional right do they have to subvert municipal law?

They can make a case they are being unfairly treated with the dissolution of the original district, but that has nothing to do with their attempts to upend municipal law in the State of Florida.

“It’s not fair! They are punishing us by making us play by the same rules as Universal!!!”

Yeah.. not going to fly…
Click to expand...
More lying. Nothing proposed makes this “the same rules.” Even just today they discussed the state rules not being sufficient.

Creathir said:
The lack of public disclosure and input would argue otherwise…
Click to expand...
More lying. Public notices were published and public hearings held. The meeting minutes are available. You can look at the dates.
 
JusticeDisney

JusticeDisney

Well-Known Member
Dan Deesnee said:
"Commercial speech is a form of protected communication under the First Amendment, but it does not receive as much free speech protection as forms of noncommercial speech."

There are many nuances to this. If this does go to court I can guarantee you that the court will not side with Disney based on a blanket "free speech" argument.
Click to expand...
No, you actually cannot guarantee that. You can opine that. Or predict it. But you cannot guarantee anything that the Supreme Court will do on this topic.
 
GoofGoof

GoofGoof

Premium Member
Dan Deesnee said:
Corporations have free speech in every state, including Florida. However, free speech has consequences sometimes. Corporations should probably just stay out of politics in general, like they used to. The average person just wants to enjoy what the company produces, not hear all about their political leanings...
Click to expand...
You obviously don’t understand what free speech means. You cannot have free speech if that speech then has consequences imposed by the government. Any company that speaks may have consequences for that speech from consumers not buying their products, from groups organizing protests and from other companies refusing to do business with them. All perfectly legal and not a violation of free speech. When the consequences for speaking out is government retaliation that’s not free speech.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom