Florida Lt Governor says the quiet part out loud. (1 Viewer)

[Gateman_Wen]

If disney goes back to the republican agenda they will get their status back. Video at the link.

Lt. Gov. Nunez: Make Mickey Mouse Republican Again!

Florida's Lt Gov. Jeanette Nuñez gave up the game by explaining Florida is punishing Disney for having a different political point of view.

crooksandliars.com

 

[HIP56948]

Oh Brother. Kinda' like "The beatings will continue until morale improves" Vee are Vatching you!

 

[Gateman_Wen]

Oh Brother. Kinda' like "The beatings will continue until morale improves" Vee are Vatching you!

Also proof that this is a first amendment violation.

 

[KevinKohler]

If disney goes back to the republican agenda they will get their status back. Video at the link.

Lt. Gov. Nunez: Make Mickey Mouse Republican Again!

Florida's Lt Gov. Jeanette Nuñez gave up the game by explaining Florida is punishing Disney for having a different political point of view.

crooksandliars.com

Lock him up. That's practically racketeering.

 

[Gateman_Wen]

Lock him up. That's practically racketeering.

First amendment violation.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

@Gateman_Wen is correct. Listen to him.
This very much IS "GOVERNMENT PUNISHMENT for expressing an opinion" and furthermore, this was never some "organized woke left mob" either. It was Disney employees.
Yes Virginia, Disney employs many gay and lesbian people -----

SHOCKER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[ttwtt78640]

First amendment violation.

The way she explained it, definitely so.

 

[Callen]

Time for Disney to take this to court.....but I doubt they will. At first, I thought that Orange County would have no standing in such a case but...if they could prove this was a violation of the 1st A which results in harm to them......maybe? Thoughts?

 

[CaughtInThe]

"Who wants to remind the Florida GOP that Citizens Untied was brought by Republicans, and made law by a GOP-majority Supreme Court to give corporations more of a voice in politics by using their wealth to do so?"

 

[ttwtt78640]

Time for Disney to take this to court.....but I doubt they will. At first, I thought that Orange County would have no standing in such a case but...if they could prove this was a violation of the 1st A which results in harm to them......maybe? Thoughts?

Perhaps a better case could be made for calling this (punish Disney?) legislation a bill of attainder (or pains and penalties).

The clause thus prohibits all legislative acts, “no matter what their form, that apply either to named individuals or to easily ascertainable members of a group in such a way as to inflict punishment on them without a judicial trial. . . .”

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-9/clause-3/bills-of-attainder

 

[MaryP]

If disney goes back to the republican agenda they will get their status back. Video at the link.

Lt. Gov. Nunez: Make Mickey Mouse Republican Again!

Florida's Lt Gov. Jeanette Nuñez gave up the game by explaining Florida is punishing Disney for having a different political point of view.

crooksandliars.com

I didn't hear her say they'd get their privileges back if they changed their stance, but she did make it clear why they passed the law.

To me this seems like an abuse of power by the governor. Imagine what he'll do as President.

 

[ttwtt78640]

"Who wants to remind the Florida GOP that Citizens Untied was brought by Republicans, and made law by a GOP-majority Supreme Court to give corporations more of a voice in politics by using their wealth to do so?"

CU limited the power of the FEC to ban private political speech (funded by anonymous donors?) too close to federal election time - not even close to what is happening with the punish Disney bill. See post #10.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I didn't hear her say they'd get their privileges back if they changed their stance, but she did make it clear why they passed the law.

To me this seems like an abuse of power by the governor. Imagine what he'll do as President.

Throwing this legislative act in the lap of the governor ignores reality. IMHO, this is clearly unconstitutional as being a bill of attainder (extra-judicial punishment), but I’m not sure whether or not that part of US Constitution the applies to state laws.

Article I, Section 9, Clause 3:

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

Bills of Attainder

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[Callen]

Throwing this legislative act in the lap of the governor ignores reality. IMHO, this is clearly unconstitutional as being a bill of attainder (extra-judicial punishment), but I’m not sure whether or not that part of US Constitution the applies to state laws.

Bills of Attainder

www.law.cornell.edu

I hope that Disdney or the Counties take his sorry ass to court....the Counties might but I don't think Disney will.

 

[Somerville]

A fun opinion piece from TechDirt gives us more examples of Florida GOPers saying exactly the opposite of what they claim in other cases.

Florida Republican Gov’t Officials Bend Over Backwards To Tell Everyone That, Yes, Absolutely, They Are Punishing Disney For Its Speech​

We had mentioned just how pathetically ridiculous it was that the Florida legislature was considering stripping the already unconstitutional Disney theme park exemption fully from the unconstitutional social media bill that was passed, with the help of Disney, just last year. And on Thursday, as expected, the Republicans in Florida’s legislature went ahead and approved that change, as well as another one, stripping Disney of a special provision in Florida law that effectively gives it a kind of sovereign power over all of Disney’s land in Orlando.

So, the TechDirt guy thought the special provisions for Disney World should have never been issued in the first place - but . . .

Over the last few months, certainly, we’ve called out politicians, both Democrat and Republican, for this extremely unfortunate trend of threatening companies with potential legislative punishment in response to their speech. Now, most of the time, the politicians (and their often vocal supporters) try to explain that it’s okay if all they are doing is passing a legislative change that should happen. However, we’ve disagreed time and time again: even if you like the legislative proposal, the fact that it’s being done as punishment for speech represents a serious 1st Amendment issue.

At least in most of those cases, though, the politicians in question weren’t quite so dumb as to publicly say that they were doing this entirely as retaliation for speech.
[. . .]
But, this is Florida. And Florida, boy, they do stuff differently down there, don’t they? And in this case, it means that Florida’s Republican politicians are literally bending over backwards to give Disney all the evidence they need to run to court and get these legislative changes declared unconstitutional retaliation. They’re not even trying to do the silly little dance where they pretend there are legitimate reasons for these legislative removes. First up, there was Rep. Randy Fine, when asked by the press if this was retaliation, he just outright admitted of course it was:
"But here’s the issue, when my 14-year-old or my 10-year-old ask for special privileges? They behave! And they don’t expect those special privileges if they act like jerks. So Disney is learning that they are a guest in this state."
[. . .]
But it gets worse. Florida’s Lt. Governor Jeanette Nunez, who earlier in this stupidly ridiculous culture war flat out claimed that Disney’s executives “have no right to criticize legislation by duly elected legislators” and stated directly that she and Governor DeSantis “won’t stand for it.” So, she had already made it clear that she didn’t believe the largest employer in her state even had the right to criticize politicians (spoiler alert: they absolutely do have that right, because contrary to whatever Florida’s GOP thinks, the 1st Amendment and free speech is actually a thing).

However, just to drive the point home about how unconstitutional this retaliation is, and the fact that the ONLY reason it’s being done is because of the company’s political speech, Nunez doubled down on Newsmax (of course) on Thursday, and when asked if Disney took back what it said, would Florida reverse course on this new legislation — she said it would!

 

[ElChupacabra]

I didn't hear her say they'd get their privileges back if they changed their stance, but she did make it clear why they passed the law.

To me this seems like an abuse of power by the governor. Imagine what he'll do as President.

DeSantis did as well. The Newsmax anchor made the point about Disney reverting to it's previous values and this all going away which Lt. Gov Nuñez seems to agree with. What's interesting is that the same folks who want parents to have more control over what their children are exposed to now advocate the government act in this regard versus just having parents decide what their kids watch.

 

[MaryP]

Throwing this legislative act in the lap of the governor ignores reality.

I read it was DeSantis's idea.

IMHO, this is clearly unconstitutional as being a bill of attainder (extra-judicial punishment), but I’m not sure whether or not that part of US Constitution the applies to state laws.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution l

http://WIKI: [I] Bills of attaind...tes)#Framers_of_the_Constitution']Framers[/I]

attached to this issue. Every state constitution also expressly forbids bills of attainder.[3][4] The U.S. Supreme Court has invalidated laws under the Attainder Clause on five occasions.[5]

 

[ttwtt78640]

DeSantis did as well. The Newsmax anchor made the point about Disney reverting to it's previous values and this all going away which Lt. Gov Nuñez seems to agree with. What's interesting is that the same folks who want parents to have more control over what their children are exposed to now advocate the government act in this regard versus just having parents decide what their kids watch.

Watching Disney‘s content does not depend on Disney running (or being) a local government.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I read it was DeSantis's idea.

OK, but the law must be challenged regardless of who agrees with it or why.

http://WIKI: [I] Bills of attaind...tes)#Framers_of_the_Constitution']Framers[/I]

attached to this issue. Every state constitution also expressly forbids bills of attainder.[3][4] The U.S. Supreme Court has invalidated laws under the Attainder Clause on five occasions.[5]

Thank you for that information.

 

[MaryP]

OK, but the law must be challenged regardless of who agrees with it or why.

I took your earlier post to mean we couldn't blame this on the governor. Yes, I think we can.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I took your earlier post to mean we couldn't blame this on the governor. Yes, I think we can.

I was simply basing my disagreement on the premise of the extremely narrowly targeted law - whether it is or is not supported by a particular politician doesn’t matter to me.

Other laws, like the proposed federal income tax (penalty?) on annual unrealized capital gains (which are not income at all) for folks with $100M (or more) in net worth are, IMHO, also unconstitutionally targeted laws specifically intended to punish a well defined minority of the population.

 

[ElChupacabra]

Watching Disney‘s content does not depend on Disney running (or being) a local government.

Nope, and one can certainly argue that these kind of arrangements should be addressed as a whole when struck with corporations as an incentive to come to a particular state. The thing is this was just making that process conditional on partisan/ideological grounds versus one of finance and process.