- Joined
- Dec 27, 2017
- Messages
- 22,825
- Reaction score
- 25,556
- Location
- Middle of it all
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Do you think the counties that would be forced to absorb Reedy Creek would have standing? Just spit balling here.I agree the right wants to make this about the Reedy Creek agreement itself not the fundamental issue of a true violation of the 1A, unlike their unfounded claims of that on Twitter. However, I'm not sure Disney will move on it and if they don't who will?
No, they have no first amendment claimDo you think the counties that would be forced to absorb Reedy Creek would have standing? Just spit balling here.
No, they may have standing on the actual disolotuion but not the 1A issue.Do you think the counties that would be forced to absorb Reedy Creek would have standing? Just spit balling here.
That is possible. Anyone owning a share of Disney stock, any Disney employee etc.Do you think the counties that would be forced to absorb Reedy Creek would have standing? Just spit balling here.
Interesting. That would imply that Disney's speech is really the speech of their shareholders?That is possible. Anyone owning a share of Disney stock, any Disney employee etc.
Isn't that what Citizens United v. Board of Elections boils down to?Interesting. That would imply that Disney's speech is really the speech of their shareholders?
Interesting. That would imply that Disney's speech is really the speech of their shareholders?
Interesting. That would imply that Disney's speech is really the speech of their shareholders?
I would say yes, but I'm not a lawyer.Do you think the counties that would be forced to absorb Reedy Creek would have standing? Just spit balling here.
Disney decided to step out and attack the will of the Florida voters by acting like a political player for a social agenda, and now Disney is hurting their family brand as a result.DeSantis' is doing his best to be Trump. Anyone that disagrees with him must be punished. He's weaponizing government and the far right will love him for it.
........and here we have the same line again! Must be a recurring theme on Fox.....Disney chose to get into this so it's on them.Disney decided to step out and attack the will of the Florida voters by acting like a political player for a social agenda, and now Disney is hurting their family brand as a result.
Disney expressed an opinion as is their constitutional right. If private citizens decide to sell their stock and boycott Disney, that's fine. For the governor to legislate against Disney because they disagree is fascism.Disney decided to step out and attack the will of the Florida voters by acting like a political player for a social agenda, and now Disney is hurting their family brand as a result.
Disney exercised their "free speech" and now many Americans are cancelling Disney services and finding better places to spend their entertainment dollars.
Can't blame the governor of Florida for Disney's PR missteps. All of that is on Disney.
I don't have a link, because nobody seems to be talking about this, but DeSantis's punitive legislation against Disney is a clear violation of the first amendment, which prohibits government from limiting your speech.
This is a clear attempt at "abridging the freedom of speech" of Disney, and the conservative types have decided that companies are people, so the first amendment has been violated.
That would be correct. They are the owners and their power as shareholders determine company policy.Interesting. That would imply that Disney's speech is really the speech of their shareholders?
Seems like a lot of folks have overlooked this.Huh. You have a point there. Odd I hadn't thought about it that way before.
And a first amendment violation.Disney expressed an opinion as is their constitutional right. If private citizens decide to sell their stock and boycott Disney, that's fine. For the governor to legislate against Disney because they disagree is fascism.
As usual a right winger who is clueless on the subject, and supports raising taxes to stick it to the Libs.Disney decided to step out and attack the will of the Florida voters by acting like a political player for a social agenda, and now Disney is hurting their family brand as a result.
Disney exercised their "free speech" and now many Americans are cancelling Disney services and finding better places to spend their entertainment dollars.
Can't blame the governor of Florida for Disney's PR missteps. All of that is on Disney.
Any judge would have to be an idiot to believe that but I do see what you're saying.they can argue they're unrelated.
Liberal media fear mongering.As usual a right winger who is clueless on the subject, and supports raising taxes to stick it to the Libs.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?