Walt Disney Parks and Resorts, Inc. v Ronald D. DeSantis
-
Trump rode this culture war to the whitehouse. Now we're wondering why DeSantis is doing the same.
Your demon is not Trump, DeSantis, nor Carlson. It's the truth. Even people who activate the disgust reflex, to which many have become immune, can purvey the truth.
-
Fortunately Florida doesn’t get to set up a Ministry of Truth and punish entities that express opinions contrary to it.
I doubt this will go to the Supreme Court, since the constitutional violations are so manifest as to be obvious to anyone not ideologically possessed. But that’s a shame since it would be a thing of beauty to watch the conservative majority tell DeSantis to eat mouse shit.
-
Fortunately Florida doesn’t get to set up a Ministry of Truth and punish entities that express opinions contrary to it.
I doubt this will go to the Supreme Court, since the constitutional violations are so manifest as to be obvious to anyone not ideologically possessed. But that’s a shame since it would be a thing of beauty to watch the conservative majority tell DeSantis to eat mouse shit.
@jon-nyc said in Walt Disney Parks and Resorts, Inc. v Ronald D, DeSantis:
Fortunately Florida doesn’t get to set up a Ministry of Truth and punish entities that express opinions contrary to it.
I doubt this will go to the Supreme Court, since the constitutional violations are so manifest as to be obvious to anyone not ideologically possessed. But that’s a shame since it would be a thing of beauty to watch the conservative majority tell DeSantis to eat mouse shit.
I'm not clear why this is unconstitutional. Please feel free to correct me by describing it. Please don't post a link, just put it into your own words.
Free Speech doesn't count, as you're a guy who went around giggling at "bad free speech takes" at every conservative turn.
-
It comes down to where the line stands between penalizing a business and removing favored status…
The one way the Reedy Creek thing can go against DeSantis is that it wasn’t a “renewing” type of agreement. It was set up as essentially in perpetuity. If it had been set up as a renewal arrangement, then there’s no longer an issue.
That’s the way out for both sides, too, IMO. Disney makes a mea culpa statement to the effect that they will limit their socio-political activities to programming and campaign donations and that personal opinions of staff and management can not and should not override the will of the voters and the consumers. The state goes back to the old Reedy Creek agreement with two changes, the agreement is renewable every 6 years and Disney will bring the pay structures up to the area average.
-
It comes down to where the line stands between penalizing a business and removing favored status…
The one way the Reedy Creek thing can go against DeSantis is that it wasn’t a “renewing” type of agreement. It was set up as essentially in perpetuity. If it had been set up as a renewal arrangement, then there’s no longer an issue.
That’s the way out for both sides, too, IMO. Disney makes a mea culpa statement to the effect that they will limit their socio-political activities to programming and campaign donations and that personal opinions of staff and management can not and should not override the will of the voters and the consumers. The state goes back to the old Reedy Creek agreement with two changes, the agreement is renewable every 6 years and Disney will bring the pay structures up to the area average.
@LuFins-Dad said in Walt Disney Parks and Resorts, Inc. v Ronald D. DeSantis:
It comes down to where the line stands between penalizing a business and removing favored status…
The one way the Reedy Creek thing can go against DeSantis is that it wasn’t a “renewing” type of agreement. It was set up as essentially in perpetuity. If it had been set up as a renewal arrangement, then there’s no longer an issue.
If the state set up a perpetual agreement with the company, then yes, it's garbage.
-
@LD - I gather that's your moral intuition, but I think it's incorrect, not only as a matter of law, but even in common usage.
What it actually comes down to is motive.
I used the example before of taking your high school kid's car away. If you do that because your family has hit hard times and you can no longer afford the extra car, it's not a punishment. If you do it because he got suspended from school, that is a punishment. Neither you nor he would take into account how special it was for him to have his own car while in high school when determining whether or not to think of it as a punishment.
But even putting that aside, the filing does a good job of outlining all the times the state of Florida, its legislature, and its Supreme Court, have declared that the RCID serves a public purpose and is not just a benefit to a private corporation.
Only non-witches get due process.
- Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
-
@Horace - it's obviously a first amendment violation to punish a company for advocating for or against a particular public policy. Florida is a state actor, and DeSantis has helpfully made clear his motivations, both before and after taking punitive action.
Most of the misuses of first amendment cries that I've criticized is the. its a private actor, not a state actor (e.g. twitter).
Besides the first amendment claims which go back to last year, the governor has violated the contract clause form article 1, the takings clause from the 5th amendment, and the due process clause from the 14th by declaring the contracts between RCID and Disney to be 'null and void'.
-
@LD - I gather that's your moral intuition, but I think it's incorrect, not only as a matter of law, but even in common usage.
What it actually comes down to is motive.
I used the example before of taking your high school kid's car away. If you do that because your family has hit hard times and you can no longer afford the extra car, it's not a punishment. If you do it because he got suspended from school, that is a punishment. Neither you nor he would take into account how special it was for him to have his own car while in high school when determining whether or not to think of it as a punishment.
But even putting that aside, the filing does a good job of outlining all the times the state of Florida, its legislature, and its Supreme Court, have declared that the RCID serves a public purpose and is not just a benefit to a private corporation.
-
If you believe that the organization is using it's influence to corrupt your children, that is enough motivation to do whatever it takes.
Bend the law, break the law, make new laws, break the original agreement, amend the original agreement, raise their taxes, take away their authority.
Do it all and more. Don't let them take your children.
How could there be any question?
-
Is the lawsuit against DeSantis or Florida? It’s relevant because it wasn’t DeSantis that voted to change the Reedy Creek issue…
-
Pretty good summary.
Governor DeSantis and his allies paid no mind to the governing structure that facilitated Reedy Creek’s successful development until one year ago, when the Governor decided to target Disney. There is no room for disagreement about what happened here: Disney expressed its opinion on state legislation and was then punished by the State for doing so.
Governor DeSantis announced that Disney's statement had "crossed the line" - a line evidently separating permissible speech from intolerable speech - and launched a barrage of threats to the company in immediate response. Since then, the Governor, the State Legislature, and the Governor’s handpicked local government regulators have moved beyond threats to official action, employing the machinery of the State in a coordinated campaign to damage Disney’s ability to do business in Florida.
State leaders have not been subtle about their reasons for government intervention. They have proudly declared that Disney deserves this fate because of what Disney said. This is as clear a case of retaliation as this Court is ever likely to see.
-
Pretty good summary.
Governor DeSantis and his allies paid no mind to the governing structure that facilitated Reedy Creek’s successful development until one year ago, when the Governor decided to target Disney. There is no room for disagreement about what happened here: Disney expressed its opinion on state legislation and was then punished by the State for doing so.
Governor DeSantis announced that Disney's statement had "crossed the line" - a line evidently separating permissible speech from intolerable speech - and launched a barrage of threats to the company in immediate response. Since then, the Governor, the State Legislature, and the Governor’s handpicked local government regulators have moved beyond threats to official action, employing the machinery of the State in a coordinated campaign to damage Disney’s ability to do business in Florida.
State leaders have not been subtle about their reasons for government intervention. They have proudly declared that Disney deserves this fate because of what Disney said. This is as clear a case of retaliation as this Court is ever likely to see.
-
The room for disagreement will be decided by the courts, as always.
That's why judges are so important. Who would like to "disagree" with Biden's own Ketanya Brown Jackson? Anybody? Hello? Beuler?
She can't disagree with the notion that men are women. Where do you think your particular case will appear on her epistemic pantheon?
-
It won’t get that high.
The most likely result is by the time this is adjudicated in district court DeSantis will have already dropped out of the 24 race and will have lost interest. Then it will get resolved more or less on Disney’s terms and he won’t bother with an appeal.
-
@jon-nyc said in Walt Disney Parks and Resorts, Inc. v Ronald D. DeSantis:
There is no room for disagreement
cute
@Copper said in Walt Disney Parks and Resorts, Inc. v Ronald D. DeSantis:
@jon-nyc said in Walt Disney Parks and Resorts, Inc. v Ronald D. DeSantis:
There is no room for disagreement
cute
Normally the disagreement would focus on motive and the cause-and-effect nature of Disney’s speech and the state’s action. But rather helpfully for Disney, DeSantis and the legislature have been proudly bragging about that connection to whomever will listen.
-
@Copper said in Walt Disney Parks and Resorts, Inc. v Ronald D. DeSantis:
@jon-nyc said in Walt Disney Parks and Resorts, Inc. v Ronald D. DeSantis:
There is no room for disagreement
cute
Normally the disagreement would focus on motive and the cause-and-effect nature of Disney’s speech and the state’s action. But rather helpfully for Disney, DeSantis and the legislature have been proudly bragging about that connection to whomever will listen.
@jon-nyc said in Walt Disney Parks and Resorts, Inc. v Ronald D. DeSantis:
@Copper said in Walt Disney Parks and Resorts, Inc. v Ronald D. DeSantis:
@jon-nyc said in Walt Disney Parks and Resorts, Inc. v Ronald D. DeSantis:
There is no room for disagreement
cute
Normally the disagreement would focus on motive and the cause-and-effect nature of Disney’s speech and the state’s action. But rather helpfully for Disney, DeSantis and the legislature have been proudly bragging about that connection to whomever will listen.
Everybody knows DeSantis is smiting an ideology.
As the culture war becomes indistinguishable from politics, this is how it's done.
