• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

An actual First Amendment Violation.

Gateman_Wen

Official disruptive influence
Banned
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 27, 2017
Messages
22,825
Reaction score
25,554
Location
Middle of it all
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
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.

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.

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.
 
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?
 
Yes, as noted before, this is what courts have found when local governments banned Chick fil a and broke contracts with Trump inc. The courts slapped them down; likely they will do that to this as well.
 
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?
Do you think the counties that would be forced to absorb Reedy Creek would have standing? Just spit balling here.
 
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.
 
Do 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.
 
That is possible. Anyone owning a share of Disney stock, any Disney employee etc.
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?

Lets remember that a shareholder is essentially a minority owner of Disney.
 
Interesting. That would imply that Disney's speech is really the speech of their shareholders?


The US courts have decided that companies are persons when it comes to free speech ( election laws I believe) No need to go to shareholders
 
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.
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.
 
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.
........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 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.
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.
 
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.


Huh. You have a point there. Odd I hadn't thought about it that way before.
 
Interesting. That would imply that Disney's speech is really the speech of their shareholders?
That would be correct. They are the owners and their power as shareholders determine company policy.
 
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.
And a first amendment violation.
 
Here's my take on it. In substance, in fact, it likely is a violation of the first amendment - but proving it is is another matter.

People are sometimes deceptive about things being linked. And I suspect that will be a question here. As obvious as it seems that there is a direct causality between Disney speaking against the Republican bigot bill, and the Republicans changing policy on Disney, they can argue they're unrelated. Sure, they had a kerfuffle about the bill, but they also just happened to make an unrelated policy decision on another matter. Prove them wrong.

The Supreme Court has all but gutted any laws against bribery because of this - prosecutors need practically a document signed by both parties saying "this exchange of goods is based on your performing an official action in our favor" to get a bribery conviction now. It doesn't seem to matter how obvious it is, short of a confessed quid pro quo.

So I'd suspect any challenge of this based on the first amendment would need to have pretty solid proof of the causality, more even than people talking about the two together, but actually proving enough people voted for it saying "I only voted for this because of Disney's criticism". And even then I'm not sure it's enough.

Because as I understand, this is always a discretionary power of the government, to grant this or not. I suspect courts are loathe to turn the discretionary power into a court-enforced guaranteed right of Disney the legislature loses the power to change.

So while we can all day rightly recognize it as a substantive violation of the first amendment, I'm not sure the courts will recognize that and limit the legislature.

On the other hand, with this principle about the government having discretionary powers it can use wrongly, it might be hard but it's not impossible for courts to recognize wrongdoing and limit them.

For example, police officers might have discretion on handing out tickets. But, as hard as it would be, if it could be proven in court that the department used race as the basis for it - all/most blacks get tickets, all/most whites don't - the court could find wrongdoing and try to order some corrective action. But how often has that happened?

On the third hand, Disney does have great resources for a legal battle, so if there can be a legal challenge mounted on this, they seem likely to do it. I suspect it'll come down to what Disney's lawyers tell them their chances are, and that it's an uphill battle for Disney. What seems likely is Republican Taliban 1; Disney, freedom and morals 0.
 
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.
As usual a right winger who is clueless on the subject, and supports raising taxes to stick it to the Libs.
 
As usual a right winger who is clueless on the subject, and supports raising taxes to stick it to the Libs.
Liberal media fear mongering.
Under the previous arrangement that Disney had with the two affected counties, Disney TAXED ITSELF for the revenue needed to pay for sewers, roads, fire services, etc, in exchange for autonomy to make their own decisions without county control, however following all local, county, and state building codes and standards. Now that this special district is dissolved, the counties will be the ones passing legislature to TAX DISNEY DIRECTLY thus acquiring the tax revenues needed for fire and infrastructure FROM DISNEY--- without any necessary change to local homeowners in the county Disney is no longer responsible for servicing any outstanding bond debts, but the counties WILL BE now taxing Disney directly AND dictating to Disney what that company used to be able to do without county approval. Thus not what Disney wanted.

Disney has for long desired to have autonomous control over development in that area, for what has always been best for Disney. Now the residents of the county get to decide. Which
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom