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

[lazyboy97o]

That cuts both ways, and Disney did the exact same thing.

Jeff Vahle's February 10 statement read, in part, "we are focused on the future and are ready to work within this new framework," which is a puzzling thing to say if you later plan to claim that the new framework was an illegal retaliatory measure taken in violation of your First Amendment rights.

That’s not a legal statement.

If it wasn't a perk, then how is losing it retaliatory?

If you say something I don’t like and then I smash your neighbor’s car because I thought it was yours, is that not retaliation?

 

[Disstevefan1]

RCID was not a perk. And from a legal standpoint it was not given to TWDC

We can agree to disagree on this.

You are free to think what was given to TWDC to bring WDW to Florida was or wasn't.

You are free to think that RCID was independent from TWDC.

I know, I know, "from a legal standpoint"....

 

[CaptainAmerica]

If you say something I don’t like and then I smash your neighbor’s car because I thought it was yours, is that not retaliation?

Sure, but I don't have a cause of action against you in that case. My neighbor is the one who suffered an "injury in fact" so he's the one with standing.

 

[flynnibus]

Sure, but I don't have a cause of action against you in that case. My neighbor is the one who suffered an "injury in fact" so he's the one with standing.

‘Chilling of speech’

Not injury

Next…

 

[peter11435]

We can agree to disagree on this.

You are free to think what was given to TWDC to bring WDW to Florida was or wasn't.

You are free to think that RCID was independent from TWDC.

I know, I know, "from a legal standpoint"....

You are welcome to disagree as long as you understand that disagreeing makes you factually and legally wrong.

No where in the 1967 charter does it say the word Disney. No power was given to Disney.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

‘Chilling of speech’

Not injury

Next…

What?

You have to have suffered an injury to have legal standing for a lawsuit.

 

[Lilofan]

States have the lawful power to arrest people. Arresting someone is not unconstitutional. Arresting someone for expressing their right to free speech IS unconstitutional.

However opinions (free speech ) by some in regards to hate speech aren't always protected by 1A.

 

[Disstevefan1]

You are welcome to disagree as long as you understand that disagreeing makes you factually and legally wrong.

No where in the 1967 charter does it say the word Disney. No power was given to Disney.

You are absolutely correct, "from a legal standpoint"...

Disney knew what they were doing.

The reality was Disney had all the power. In reality RCID was controlled by Disney.

But yes, I am, "factually and legally wrong". The reality was different.

Legally and reality are two different things.

So, you are right, but I knew the reality.

 

[pdude81]

However opinions (free speech ) by some in regards to hate speech aren't always protected by 1A.

Hate speech itself is protected. How you may use it in commission of another crime is not.

 

[peter11435]

However opinions (free speech ) by some in regards to hate speech aren't always protected by 1A.

Hate speech by itself is also protected. But that’s irrelevant here because there was no hate speech involved.

 

[Lilofan]

Hate speech itself is protected. How you may use it in commission of another crime is not.

If hate speech involves intimidation you can get arrested so speaking your mind in a hateful way with words can get you to spend time in jail.

 

[Chi84]

The state from day 1 always had the lawful power to dissolve RCID. They just chose to let it be until now.

Folks are free to speculate as to why they chose to act now, but that does not make the dissolution of RCID unconstitutional.

Do I think this whole thing is a circus and is bad for Disney, the gov, and Florida, YES!

Even a legal act, if done for the wrong reasons, can be an illegal act.

 

[Chi84]

RCID was a perk given to TWDC from the State. They are within their power to take it away; they don't need a reason.

If I was the gov, I would have let it be.

They are within their power to take it away - as long as they are not violating someone's Constitutional rights in doing so.

For example: Most employment in this country is "at will," which means the employment relationship can be ended by either party at any time. It's commonly said that an employer can fire an employee "for a good reason, a bad reason or no reason at all."

But the employer is limited by an employee's legal rights. The employee has a right under the first amendment to advocate forming a union. So even though the employer could have fired the employee for no reason at all, if they fire the person for advocating a union, the employee will have a cause of action for retaliatory discharge based on violation of his first amendment rights to freedom of speech and association.

Intent matters, and in court it's an issue of fact. The employer will come in with evidence of various legal reasons for firing the employee (lateness, poor performance, etc.) and the employee will counter with evidence that his performance was considered satisfactory until he exercised his first amendment right. The fact finder will decide what the true reason was for the firing.

Here, the governor has made the intent issue pretty easy.

 

[Disstevefan1]

They are within their power to take it away - as long as they are not violating someone's Constitutional rights in doing so.

For example: Most employment in this country is "at will," which means the employment relationship can be ended by either party at any time. It's commonly said that an employer can fire an employee "for a good reason, a bad reason or no reason at all."

But the employer is limited by an employee's legal rights. The employee has a right under the first amendment to advocate forming a union. So even though the employer could have fired the employee for no reason at all, if they fire the person for advocating a union, the employee will have a cause of action for retaliatory discharge based on violation of his first amendment rights to freedom of speech and association.

Intent matters, and in court it's an issue of fact. The employer will come in with evidence of various legal reasons for firing the employee (lateness, poor performance, etc.) and the employee will counter with evidence that his performance was considered satisfactory until he exercised his first amendment right. The fact finder will decide what the true reason was for the firing.

Here, the governor has made the intent issue pretty easy.

It this is so clear cut and easy.

Is Disney… er I mean, (the former RCID) fighting this as unconstitutional?

Why isn’t Disney (on behalf of the former RCID ) fighting this as unconstitutional?

 

[flynnibus]

It this is so clear cut and easy.

Is Disney… er I mean, (the former RCID) fighting this as unconstitutional?

Why isn’t Disney (on behalf of the former RCID ) fighting this as unconstitutional?

You were here when this was discussed before. Please stop trying to rehash old stuff in some feigned gotcha attempt.

 

[Disstevefan1]

You were here when this was discussed before. Please stop trying to rehash old stuff in some feigned gotcha attempt.

I was asking the question. I apologize.

 

[Chi84]

It this is so clear cut and easy.

Is Disney… er I mean, (the former RCID) fighting this as unconstitutional?

Why isn’t Disney (on behalf of the former RCID ) fighting this as unconstitutional?

There could be any multitude of reasons. Legal rights don't expire until quite some time after an actionable wrong, so they lose nothing at all by waiting. Lawyers are notorious for waiting until the last minute to file lawsuits; that says nothing at all about the strength of the case.

I've said several times that we can speculate all we want but we don't know all the facts about this situation. For example, no one knew about the development agreements until the new board brought them to light. Disney can choose other avenues to fight the state's actions without jeopardizing their first amendment claim.

In short, lawyers like to drag things out.

 

[JusticeDisney]

The state from day 1 always had the lawful power to dissolve RCID. They just chose to let it be until now.

Folks are free to speculate as to why they chose to act now, but that does not make the dissolution of RCID unconstitutional.

Do I think this whole thing is a circus and is bad for Disney, the gov, and Florida, YES!

Actually, there is no need to speculate as to why. DeSantis is on record multiple times saying exactly why.

 

[JusticeDisney]

That cuts both ways, and Disney did the exact same thing.

Jeff Vahle's February 10 statement read, in part, "we are focused on the future and are ready to work within this new framework," which is a puzzling thing to say if you later plan to claim that the new framework was an illegal retaliatory measure taken in violation of your First Amendment rights.


If it wasn't a perk, then how is losing it retaliatory?

An arrangement that is mutually beneficial to both sides is not a perk. And losing the benefit of an arrangement can be retaliatory.

 

[GoofGoof]

The state from day 1 always had the lawful power to dissolve RCID. They just chose to let it be until now.

Folks are free to speculate as to why they chose to act now, but that does not make the dissolution of RCID unconstitutional.

Do I think this whole thing is a circus and is bad for Disney, the gov, and Florida, YES!

Except they didn‘t dissolve RCID. The governor seized control of the district to wield its authority against Disney to punish them for first speaking out and now for outplaying him and embarrassing him on a national stage. If you want to argue a valid reason to dissolve the district is to remove an unfair advantage Disney shouldn’t have that’s a different debate. What happened is not that.