DeSantis vs. Disney

DeSantis doubles down: "Disney should not run its own government" - Truth Tent

Charles Cooke at NRO made the point in a podcast last week that the same illogic applies to the Disney mess in Florida. If you support the “don’t say gay” law and you also support DeSantis calling Disney out for failing to apply their allegedly high moral standards to China, the fact that you passed those two populist litmus tests won’t stop you from being called a “traitor” if you fail the next litmus test, whether the state should rescind Disney’s district. DeSantis didn’t need to make that move: It’ll be an administrative nightmare for the neighboring counties, it may inadvertently reduce Disney’s tax and debt obligations (which DeSantis is keen to deny in the clip), it’ll expose Florida to an array of litigation touching on free speech and property rights, and it’s all in service to retaliating against Disney over a policy fight which DeSantis … won.

It’s wholly gratuitous, leaving aside the corrupt intentions that motivated it. But now that taking away Disney’s district has become the new litmus test, none of the earlier litmus tests in this dispute matter. If you conclude that rescinding the district is a step too far on the legal or policy merits, you’re a sellout.

Which is why I think the camp that holds the hybrid view is in for a rude awakening. DeSantis won’t treat this as kabuki because he can’t. To do so would be to fail a superfluous litmus test of his own creation, the rescission of Disney’s district. In populist politics, the best thing is to fight and win; next best is to fight and lose; but to stop fighting is unforgivable. Expecting DeSantis to give Disney back its district is asking him to stop fighting. If he were to do that and run for president in 2024, Trump would spend every day of the primaries calling him a coward for not following through with Disney. And DeSantis knows it.

So I think he’ll have to follow through. As expensive and inefficient as that may be for Florida and its counties, and as much as it may discourage companies from initiating new business in Florida for fear of running afoul of the governor’s whims, the logic of the litmus test compels this self-destructive behavior. I think DeSantis has gotten high on his own applause to some degree lately and needs to feed the addiction by promising even more punishment for Disney. Just listen to the crowd in the clip as he vows, without specifics, to somehow magically obviate all of the negative fiscal and administrative consequences of eliminating Disney’s district.

 

Has Chick-fil-A lost any of its right to free speech? Even the tiniest shred?

 

It's less about being able to tell the difference and more about not wanting to see the difference. When a person has spent page after page doubling down on something they know is wrong and fishing for "gotchas," they're going to keep throwing crap against the wall until something sticks.

 

Your bias is clear in your willingness to ignore that Disney pushed on with an agenda misrepresenting the bill. You support a bill. Yet you are good with Disney and others misrepresenting it in order to change the narrative for their agenda.

Just like Disney can say what they wish...there are consequences when you say things.

Our kids do not have social media. But they will be hammered with the reality that there are consequences for what they say and write.

Every time we hire we do as much research as we can on an applicant before setting up an interview. Some of that stuff people post on FB etc can cost them a shot for an interview. But they have every right to say what they wish. Disney has every right to say what they wish. But when you misrepresent something that an entity has done and you are receiving special privileges from that entity...you best be ready to deal with potential consequences. Should DeSantis have played this hard? Maybe not. That said...I think he knows exactly what he is doing. Maybe this will be his first big mistake. But based on how well he has led the State of Florida. I would not count on that.

 

Has Disney lost any of it's right to free speech? Even the tiniest shred?

 

Has Disney lost any right to free speech? They are free to keep peddling the false narrative about the bill. But they are not. And it is because they know they are on the wrong side.

 

I guess the vatican with mouse ears wrongly calculated their freedom of speech would never lead to any negative consequences.

 

None of that is a bias. I acknowledged Disney misrepresented a bill. I also acknowledged that is legally protected speech that the first amendment protects Dinsey from government retribution. I'm not sure where you see bias.

 

And I guess those of us who thought people like you actually believed in the First Amendment were wrong as well. Private citizens have every right to punish Disney for their political speech. The government does not.

 

"Threat to our Democracy."

"Hold them accountable."

That doesn't sound like she's just talking about their wealth. It sounds like they did something she doesn't like. And coming off the heels of Musk buying Twitter, I think that might have something to do with it.

 

But it's not applied uniformly, she's targeting "Big Tech."

If DeSantis said "we need to hold Florida theme parks accountable," almost immediately after Disney opposed the Parental Rights in Education Act, you would've had no problem with this?

 

See. That is your bias. You view this as retribution. I don’t see it that way. Which does not mean that DeSantis should look at a different way to handle the situation.

Disney has an obligation to treat the State of Florida with respect as they are receiving special privileges. Misrepresenting a bill that the vast majority agree with shows a complete lack of respect for Florida. This is about consequences. Not retribution.

 

Please show any source that proves a "vast" majority supporting the unconstitutional law.
Democratic government does not exact retribution for free speech, fascist authoritarian governments do so often. Please note: if consequences occur from free speech they are indeed consequences. However if government exacts consequences for free speech it is by definition retribution. Learn

 

This is literally retribution. They told us so.

You’re a corporation based in Burbank, California, and you’re gonna marshal your economic might to attack the parents of my state,” DeSantis said Friday before signing the bill into law at a ceremony in Hialeah Gardens. “We view that as a provocation, and we’re going to fight back against that.

You can call it retribution, punishment, removing of privileges. Whatever you want to call it. Doesn't change a thing. Violation of rights guaranteed by the first amendment.

 

Please keep pushing this in the arena of ideas.

 

Disney is not guaranteed special privileges. That is the reality of this.

They have an obligation to respect the State of Florida. They did not. And now they are dealing with the consequences of that. Did DeSantis go too far? Maybe. Maybe not.

Disney can continue to peddle their misrepresentation all they want and continue to disrespect the State of Florida. They have every constitutional right to do so. Just like the State of Florida has the constitutional right to deal with that misrepresentation they way they see fit.

 

I am having trouble understanding how you fail to recognize the difference between governmental retaliation against free speech, with the private company’s right to free speech.

This is an engrained fundamental right that we all equally enjoy.

Even if he you’re correct that Disney “mischaracterized” your cherished Don’t Sat Gay law, the one FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT they should be assured is that the GOVERNMENT will not, indeed cannot, retaliate against them for exercising that right. Thus, the very premise of your argument - that Disney should know that there would be “consequences”, is legally flawed. The government is not permitted to retaliate. Period.

Yes, Disney cans should expect “consequences,” both negative and positive depending on the viewpoint. But those consequences must only come from consumers, or those choosing to respond via their own first amendment right, such as criticism (or accolade). Being stripped of a property right, from an emergency retaliatory session with no debate or study, mind you, is nit an expected or lawful “consequence”.

 

Yes.

 

Let's play a game. I'm going to post the state standards for health education here in the state of Florida for grades K-12. Let's see if you can find sex education for the K-3 bunch here. Ready, set, go!

Search Standards | CPALMS.org

 

I think that something that isn’t connecting with most of these analogies is that DeSantis used the state to punish Disney for speaking negatively about something DeSantis did.

Warren seems to think that big tech companies own too much power and are therefore a threat to the public good. Her view is debatable, and I’m not going to endorse it, but she’s not fighting to use the state to punish Facebook because Zuckerberg spoke out against Warren’s actions. She’s fighting an anti-trust battle.

Do you see a difference between these two things?