If the government takes punitive action against a person or company because of something they said, barring those statements themselves being criminal yeah it's a clear violation of free speech.

That's the hard part about freedom - other people get to have it too, not just people you agree with.

2 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

If the government takes punitive action against a person or company because of something they said, barring those statements themselves being criminal yeah it's a clear violation of free speech.

That's the hard part about freedom - other people get to have it too, not just people you agree with.

yep, i'm not telling anyone to like what disney does and stands for. that's your choice and if you don't like it, don't give them your money. 

to be clear though, the argument goes both ways. <- pun intended

Just now, Alpha_TATEr said:

yep, i'm not telling anyone to like what disney does and stands for. that's your choice and if you don't like it, don't give them your money. 

to be clear though, the argument goes both ways. <- pun intended

yup. 

I don't like much when companies like Hobby Lobby speak out against things like birth control/etc. But if the government started taking punitive action against them for espoused beliefs I'd be there defending their right.

Voltaire had it right. 

1 hour ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

If the government takes punitive action against a person or company because of something they said, barring those statements themselves being criminal yeah it's a clear violation of free speech.

That's the hard part about freedom - other people get to have it too, not just people you agree with.

Not to interrupt your amazing speech and all, but I dont think that applies to this Disney situation at all and Im inclined to say Disnet agrees because they haven't sued.

First amendments applied to a organization like Disney isnt as clear cut as an every day citizen.  And especially because of their special status within the state.

1 hour ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

yup. 

I don't like much when companies like Hobby Lobby speak out against things like birth control/etc. But if the government started taking punitive action against them for espoused beliefs I'd be there defending their right.

Voltaire had it right. 

If Hobby Lobby had their own self-governed section of Pennsylvania maybe, but I think it depends on the specific situation.  I dont think the first amendment is as clear cut about corporate free speech.

1 hour ago, VanHammersly said:

Yes it was.  The government took punitive action against a company for taking a position they disagreed with.  It wasn't even done covertly.  The reasoning was stated, so there's no ambiguity here.  It's the kind of thing that, if it was done in the name of woke, you would be vehemently against and cry socialism.

Then Disney should sue, correct?  I wonder why they havent.

Just now, Mike31mt said:

Then Disney should sue, correct?  I wonder why they havent.

Because they've suffered no damages yet, since they passed a resolution with the old board locking in the structure and outsmarting the DeSantis government.

You need damages to sue. 

4 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Because they've suffered no damages yet, since they passed a resolution with the old board locking in the structure and outsmarting the DeSantis government.

You need damages to sue. 

For a first amendment violation?? You sure about that?  I dont think so.

24 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Because they've suffered no damages yet, since they passed a resolution with the old board locking in the structure and outsmarting the DeSantis government.

You need damages to sue. 

As always with the National Socialists, the only thing that saves them is their own incompetence.  

Or, probably more appropriately, the point was never to actually do anything to Disney, it was for Meatball Ron to virtue signal in hopes that people like Mike and the other citizens of WV are impressed and applaud him for his stunning bravery.  In which case, mission accomplished, since Mike's doing that right now.

i have to admit, disney has done a complete turn around on what they are doing since rhonda started this. he really showed them. 

13 minutes ago, Mike31mt said:

For a first amendment violation?? You sure about that?  I dont think so.

To sue in civil court you need damages. Even if you're going to claim emotional distress, you need to quantify it. It's about money. What could Disney claim at this point? I guess reputational damage? 

So far, their 1st amendment rights haven't been infringed. DeSantis put in his own board, but Disney found a way to neuter them. If that is changed and they add costs to Disney, then they will have damages and can go to Federal Court. 

There's nothing to sue for now.

3 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

To sue in civil court you need damages. Even if you're going to claim emotional distress, you need to quantify it. It's about money. What could Disney claim at this point? I guess reputational damage? 

So far, their 1st amendment rights haven't been infringed. DeSantis put in his own board, but Disney found a way to neuter them. If that is changed and they add costs to Disney, then they will have damages and can go to Federal Court. 

There's nothing to sue for now.

I am uncertain as to the state of things in Florida because I don't care much about the state or its inhabitants, but couldn't the fact that Disney no longer controls Reedy Creek be considered damages? 

12 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

I am uncertain as to the state of things in Florida because I don't care much about the state or its inhabitants, but couldn't the fact that Disney no longer controls Reedy Creek be considered damages? 

Yeah, but they'd have to demonstrate actual harm. With what they pulled with the outgoing board, there really isn't any.

So they'd sue to undo what the state did and put the old board in place. If they lose that, it legitimizes what FL did. Also, suing and raising the issue invites a countersuit by FL to undo the actions of the prior board. There's no reason for Disney to fire that shot. It puts undo risk on the table when they are already winning.

I am going through a lawsuit suing a municipality for trying to illegally (in my mind) terminate a lease and am asking the court to find the lase valid. Disney could do the same and ask the court to undo FL's changes, but why would they?

Basically, saying "Disney didn't sue so it was totally legit" is a ridiculous statement. They don't have quantifiable damages, and therefore no reason to sue and add any risk.

And that doesn't even get into how difficult it would be for Disney to prove intent and a direct correlation to their public statements. Despite all of DeSantis' bloviating publicly, I'd assume he was smart enough to have someone do an analysis that showed the changes were in the best interest of the state of Florida. If he has that, then he can say in court it wasn't about punishing speech but about doing his job to protect FL shareholders. Disney would have to do massive discovery looking for emails and other documents that show it was directly related to their stance on the legislation. 

The public statements wouldn't be enough IF they were smart enough to document actual viable reasons for the actions taken.

7 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

I am going through a lawsuit suing a municipality for trying to illegally (in my mind) terminate a lease and am asking the court to find the lase valid.

I'm assuming there was no clause in the lease allowing them to term early ? 

my company still does some gov contracts, but is moving away from them because of the hassles they bring. 

Disney should pack up and leave Florida and find a more friendly State.

 

 

11 minutes ago, jsdarkstar said:

Disney should pack up and leave Florida and find a more friendly State.

 

 

that easy ya think ? 

26 minutes ago, Alpha_TATEr said:

I'm assuming there was no clause in the lease allowing them to term early ? 

my company still does some gov contracts, but is moving away from them because of the hassles they bring. 

It's a development agreement with milestones for construction. The city refused to issue permits and tried to ban the handling of certain commodities after the deal was signed. We sued in federal court and won. We also gave a notice of force majeure based on their actions (new laws, not issuing permits, etc.) and the contract says a notice is sufficient to toll buildout requirements. They gave notice to terminate and we sued. 

In discovery we found a memo issued to all relevant departments not to issue permits in order to delay us. So yeah...they're Fed.

8 minutes ago, Alpha_TATEr said:

that easy ya think ? 

No, not really. It would cost a ton of money, and even if they move to a blue state, that state may turn Red in the future. I guess Disney has been around a lot longer than DeSantis and can wait him out, maybe one day Florida will turn blue, but I have my doubts that will ever happen. 

4 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

It's a development agreement with milestones for construction. The city refused to issue permits and tried to ban the handling of certain commodities after the deal was signed. We sued in federal court and won. We also gave a notice of force majeure based on their actions (new laws, not issuing permits, etc.) and the contract says a notice is sufficient to toll buildout requirements. They gave notice to terminate and we sued. 

In discovery we found a memo issued to all relevant departments not to issue permits in order to delay us. So yeah...they're Fed.

gotcha, i deal with equipment leases so there are certainly different parameters. i still laugh when these customers act like there won't be a discovery only to have it blow up in their faces.

dealing with new jersey and their payment vouchers are the worst. the worst. 

1 hour ago, vikas83 said:

Yeah, but they'd have to demonstrate actual harm. With what they pulled with the outgoing board, there really isn't any.

So they'd sue to undo what the state did and put the old board in place. If they lose that, it legitimizes what FL did. Also, suing and raising the issue invites a countersuit by FL to undo the actions of the prior board. There's no reason for Disney to fire that shot. It puts undo risk on the table when they are already winning.

I am going through a lawsuit suing a municipality for trying to illegally (in my mind) terminate a lease and am asking the court to find the lase valid. Disney could do the same and ask the court to undo FL's changes, but why would they?

Basically, saying "Disney didn't sue so it was totally legit" is a ridiculous statement. They don't have quantifiable damages, and therefore no reason to sue and add any risk.

But just not having control of the board hurts them, does it not? You know more than I do, but they've had to resort to those sorts of tactics to escape attempted harm by the state. I would think they could demonstrate that their business functions are negatively impacted due to actions taken in reprisal to their stated views. 

Ultimately I just think there should be some available method of recourse to address a grievance like this that doesn't require demonstrating harm. i.e. if a local, state, or federal government office attempts to violate a constitutionally protected right there ought to be a legal standard that can be met other than demonstrating harm. I would assume harm would always be there, but even simply a government office explicitly stating they're making policy changes on the basis of someone expressing a particular view seems like it ought to be cause. That probably opens up a major can of worms in our already overly litigious society, but just seems wrong broadly speaking. 

2 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

But just not having control of the board hurts them, does it not? You know more than I do, but they've had to resort to those sorts of tactics to escape attempted harm by the state. I would think they could demonstrate that their business functions are negatively impacted due to actions taken in reprisal to their stated views. 

Ultimately I just think there should be some available method of recourse to address a grievance like this that doesn't require demonstrating harm. i.e. if a local, state, or federal government office attempts to violate a constitutionally protected right there ought to be a legal standard that can be met other than demonstrating harm. I would assume harm would always be there, but even simply a government office explicitly stating they're making policy changes on the basis of someone expressing a particular view seems like it ought to be cause. That probably opens up a major can of worms in our already overly litigious society, but just seems wrong broadly speaking. 

They could sue to try and undo the changes and say they were motivated as retaliation for Disney exercising its 1st amendment rights. I haven't looked at the agreements Disney had over the area to see what the rights are for the state to replace the board, but I'm guessing they had that right and exercised it. So if it didn't violate a contract, you'd have to prove it was done merely as a punishment for the statements. That's hard without a smoking gun.

23 minutes ago, Alpha_TATEr said:

gotcha, i deal with equipment leases so there are certainly different parameters. i still laugh when these customers act like there won't be a discovery only to have it blow up in their faces.

dealing with new jersey and their payment vouchers are the worst. the worst. 

Every time I deal with these politicians, I die a little inside. Mayor, city council members, city attorney, city administrator -- not two brain cells to run together among the whole lot.

Looks like Trump had a stroke. Notice the face droop on the right side of his face on the photo. 

 

We should be so lucky