So can people in Iran. It is just that they have "consequences" delivered by the government. But you won't frame it that way, because you don't have cognitive dissonance about calling out that particular government dealing out consequences for speech.
There is no government carve out to say...government cannot look at privileges provided. Now if Florida was going beyond and actually punishing Disney then there would be a 1st Amendment case. Florida is not doing that. Hence it is just whining by those who did not get their way and I guess want to teach young elementary kids about sex education. Creepy honestly if you ask me!
No need to continue. Trying to compare Iran to Disney and Florida is the height of absurdity. I get you are apparently upset that Florida did not appreciate Disney peddling a false narrative about a bill the vast majority of people support. Most likely you are just jumping on because it is DeSantis and that is the hip thing for a dem to do. But Disney can speak as it wishes.
Yeah, you like one set of "consequences" because they are passed by your in-group against your out-group and not the other because it isn't. Which is the point. I actually support the First Amendment. You should try it sometime.
Actually, there is. https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep357/usrep357513/usrep357513.pdf The State of California gave a tax benefit to veterans compared to other people but required them to sign a document about their politics (which is speech) in order to obtain this benefit/privilege. The Supreme Court ruled that this was a violation of the First Amendment.
Some folks understanding of the first amendment is akin to their understanding of statistics and virology.
Oh I do. Disney has not had their First Amendment Rights violated as much as you want to believe they have. And they know this...
No, you clearly don't. The government retaliating against private entities due to speech is a violation of their First Amendment rights. And you know this...but you still support it.
No. This is nothing more than consequences for speech. You can say what you want but there can be consequences. And nothing Florida has done violated Disney's First Amendment Right to Free Speech. I will say it is a bit creepy how much effort has been put in by some to defend the false narrative pushed by Disney to support the stopping of a bill that was put in place to remove sex ed for young children K-3rd.
English was not my thing. GRE: 800 Math and 410 Verbal I usually try to keep it to one negative a sentence. But when time is not on my side and trying to make a point in a forum like this...I fail from time to time. Glad you felt the need to pipe in as the grammar police. Should make you feel better about yourself!
The First Amendment is supposed to prevent "consequences for speech" as delivered by the government. Private consequences. Not government consequences. Not according to precedent, which you are trying to avoid. In another case, California granted certain people tax benefits and required certain speech to receive them. The Supreme Court ruled that violated their First Amendment rights. You are arguing here that the government can require speech to receive benefits. They can't. Speaking of false narratives...look at this sentence. Wow.
I know. And having fun back at you. I completely understand I am not a great with English. At our house the kids come to me for Math and some Science. The go to mom for English and most Science. Honestly I really do try to not post something that bad lol. Kind of glad you pointed it out. I went and edited it a bit already...
The government has the right to look at special privileges. Disney will not be taking this to court. In fact Disney will work with Florida to iron things out. Disney spoke. And now they get to deal with the consequences. But they are not having their First Amendment Rights violated.
Exactly. And the 1st amendment protects us against government providing consequences for speech. Which is why people are saying that this is a 1st amendment violation. The government is producing consequences for speech.
So does the state of California have the right to take away a veteran's tax privileges, to use your words, if they won't engage in certain speech? Does that violate those people's rights to speech?
They are not being denied their right to speak. But they are being punished for speaking. That is the unconstitutional action.
A federal employee cannot speak about a public issue if it disrupts the employers interest in an efficient workplace. And it appears the government can even take adverse reaction if the speech was deemed protected by the ACLU's thoughts. The ACLU has a nice little flow graph to help. free_speech_fed_employees_kyr.pdf (acludc.org) Disney clearly peddled the false narrative about a bill the state of Florida has signed into law. So Florida has every right to look at any privileges it has afforded Disney. Obviously Disney is slightly different than a straight up federal employee. But as you can see. The government can terminate someone for speech if it is deemed to disrupt the employers interest (the flyer built for the federal employee therefore the federal government being the employer).
Again, you are confusing the concept of the physical act of speaking with the unlawful actions of government retaliation for the physical act. Yes, Disney can and did freely speak. BUT AFTER THAT FREE EXPRESSION, the government unlawfully retaliated to that speech. It’s the latter event — the unlawful governmental retaliation, that I am speaking about, whereas you continue to ignore this prong of the event.
