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

GoofGoof

GoofGoof

Premium Member
RamblinWreck said:
I think it will essentially eliminate freedom of speech, full stop. There’s no reason it would have to be limited to corporations.
Click to expand...
The distinction is jailing or fining. It still upholds that the government cannot throw you in jail for speaking against them like the classic example of a protestor who cannot be jailed for attending a legally organized rally. For corporations there is not really a fear of jailing unless they tried to imprison the CEO or leadership which hasn’t really been a concern. Government retaliation against corporations is usually tied to damaging their ability to make a profit or operate their business. If Freedom of Speech is limited solely to no jail time and no direct fines then all these actions can be retaliation but they are still legal.
 
R

RamblinWreck

Well-Known Member
GoofGoof said:
The distinction is jailing or fining. It still upholds that the government cannot throw you in jail for speaking against them like the classic example of a protestor who cannot be jailed for attending a legally organized rally. For corporations there is not really a fear of jailing unless they tried to imprison the CEO or leadership which hasn’t really been a concern. Government retaliation against corporations is usually tied to damaging their ability to make a profit or operate their business. If Freedom of Speech is limited solely to no jail time and no direct fines then all these actions can be retaliation but they are still legal.
Click to expand...
There are a lot of ways you can mess with an individual or group without needing to jail or fine them though.
 
GoofGoof

GoofGoof

Premium Member
RamblinWreck said:
There are a lot of ways you can mess with an individual or group without needing to jail or fine them though.
Click to expand...
Yeah, for sure. To your point this would be limiting what is considered protected today for individuals as well. There is a push away from the constitution and towards more authoritarian government overreach in the name of public good. Remember this all started to “protect the children”. For those that really believe in that the ends justify the means. As was pointed out earlier the literal verbiage of the constitution only protects citizens from being jailed or fined for speaking out. The rest of the protections are interpretations by the court and those can change.
 
Vacationeer

Vacationeer

Well-Known Member
In the Parks
No
ParentsOf4 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Each time I read this it still seems like a horrible example from Scalia.

Using an example like Aryan Supreme Party when it comes to a housing security contract - ?

Could the AS Party even meet all of the contract terms? This is what is stopping groups like this from getting government contracts. They can’t abide.

The SC judge using this example almost seems disingenuous imo.
 
Z

Zorba

New Member
GoofGoof said:
The distinction is jailing or fining. It still upholds that the government cannot throw you in jail for speaking against them like the classic example of a protestor who cannot be jailed for attending a legally organized rally. For corporations there is not really a fear of jailing unless they tried to imprison the CEO or leadership which hasn’t really been a concern. Government retaliation against corporations is usually tied to damaging their ability to make a profit or operate their business. If Freedom of Speech is limited solely to no jail time and no direct fines then all these actions can be retaliation but they are still legal.
Click to expand...
That would basically contradict Citizens United and every Bue State could instantly turnaround and punish any corporation that donated to the GOP.
 
GoofGoof

GoofGoof

Premium Member
Zorba said:
That would basically contradict Citizens United and every Bue State could instantly turnaround and punish any corporation that donated to the GOP.
Click to expand...
I don’t disagree. I also don’t think the people behind this care. Corporations are evil and woke now and should be punished accordingly. Over 85% of corporations have some form of DEI initiative so eventually they will need to boycott each and every one. :banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:
 
Chi84

Chi84

Premium Member
GoofGoof said:
I don’t disagree. I also don’t think the people behind this care. Corporations are evil and woke now and should be punished accordingly. Over 85% of corporations have some form of DEI initiative so eventually they will need to boycott each and every one. :banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:
Click to expand...
Right. Until they force them to go back in time to the way things used to be. That usually works, doesn’t it?
 
D

DCBaker

Premium Member
Update in the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District vs Walt Disney Parks And Resorts case.

"The court grants hearing time for Friday July 14th at 2:00pm for 1 hour. Hearing shall be
noticed by counsel. All unopposed Motions for Pro Hac Vice are GRANTED."

Screenshot 2023-06-05 at 8.53.56 AM.png
 

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

Back
Top Bottom