Disney scraps plans for new Florida campus, mass employee relocation amid DeSantis feud

Yes, the agenda of accurately describing the law and its effects

 

I have no idea what beer bet you are referring to.

Here is a link to the Disney complaint filed in federal court against DeSaster and company. You might want to pay particular attention to counts 4 and 5, the....wait for it...1A causes of action. To make it super easy for you they even put "First Amendment Violation" in the heading for each of those two counts. Unlike Trump's "legal" team, you are not going to find Disney's attorneys filing frivolous lawsuits subjecting themselves to sanctions.

DocumentCloud

 

What is happening to Disney right now is not how these things play out in countries that value freedom of speech.

I truly at am a loss to understand your perspective on this. You have already admitted you are not a lawyer and haven't studied the topic, yet you insist that the lawyers don't understand this as well as you do.

Can you give an example of another time when a state stripped a company of protections for the company misrepresenting the content of a law passed by that state?

 

The characterization of the act as Don't Say Gay is perfectly accurate. It was sufficiently accurate when it was first passed and even more so now the implementing regulations have been passed, and more will be. In addition, the law, for First Amendment purposes, considers both a facial challenge and an as applied challenge. They mean what they sound like. Even though his argument that the law on its face does not single out gender nonconformity, the statements of the legislature and the governor, as well as the way it's been applied, would dispel any claim that the description is inaccurate. Addressed it at length before, and subsequent implementing regulations make the claim stronger - Don't say gay bill

 

I can’t force you to understand the concept of government retaliation. However, just to be clear, while I seldom have problems acknowledging the other side’s point, in no way have I have done so here, as your point is, well, misguided in almost every single facet. And while we may be “closer to agreement on most” of the points, we most certainly would reach that undefined agreement by traveling completely different paths with no intersection other than the endpoint.

 

I will be sending you my medical bill for treatment of the concussion I received banging my head against the wall.

 

Well even if using a nickname & lying weren't protected under 1A (flat earthers say hi!), they covered that anyway. "Also known as" destroys even that psychotic thread that Q's grasping at.

 

He doesn't understand that the 1A was designed to protect against the government interfering with free speech. He has that confused with the ability of a private employer, for example, firing an employee over his/her social media posts. Go back to when he went off on this mindless sidetrack. He's talking about "consequences" without any understanding of what entities can punish the exercise of free speech and which ones can't.

 

He keeps arguing that free speech means you can say what you want, but you must face the consequences of your action from the government.

You know he’s wrong.
The other lawyer posters know he’s wrong.
I’d venture that 98% of the Board knows he’s wrong.

I have concluded that he’s just drinking a bottle of scotch and messing with us. There’s no other cogent explanation.

 

Post 656...

I responded to you and said lets wager a beer on who comes out on top with regards to the First Amendment...

 

Possibly. After all is said and done...Let's chat about it over a beer! I buy if Florida is found to have violated Disney's First Amendment Rights. You buy if they did not.

I have no doubt you know more of the legal stuff than I do not. I chatted with my attorney today that handled our Civil Theft Case. Funny thing it involved land as I knew the guy had 40 acres (off topic). He has not done a deep dive at all into this case. But when I asked him if he thought Disney had a First Amendment Case...his response was I do not see how. But then again...He probably sees things differently than you and that is fine. I know he is a conversative. I know he would be a Conservative on abortion if her were a judge on the supreme court as he would have been on the dissent in Roe v Wade. We chatted about these things years ago...

Needless to say. It has been a nice conversation even though we disagree. Wish some others on too hot would engage as you have today.

 

A conservative would be on the side of the constitution. all the time, every time.

 

Please do. Not sure it will get paid...

 

Yes!

You are getting there!

 

Your “informative” rating to my concussion joke made me laugh. Well played.

 

If they had left out the false narrative...this likely would have never happened. But they wanted to go public and let everyone know. In doing so they used the false narrative. They should have been smarter...

 

tell me the false narrative

 

The bill has nothing to do with "Don't Say Gay". It is about K-3rd graders and what is appropriate for schools to discuss with them in the classroom. But the agenda pushers wanted to make a deal about it. This is something the vast majority of people would have agreed with. But the msm and a few people got everyone worked up and at the end of the day...Disney decided to play the game.

 

Disney did not say that it had anything to do with don't say gay. Here's their statement. Where did they push a false narrative?

 

Disney and you are not dumb...

'Don't Say Gay bill'