Disney Sues Desantis

LOL, wrong again. You must not be paying attention to any initiatives in the country where the people actually get to choose.

Let's wager a lifetime Too Hot ban. If the majority of Floridians support the pro-choice 2024 ballot initiative (assuming it makes it on the ballot)....you are GONL forever. If the majority votes against it, I am.

 

Look at Trump and his large swath of defenders. It is almost to the point it doesn’t matter what someone does, if they are on your “side”.

 

This is clearly true, but there is often a bit more nuance in defending questionable actions. E.g. If Biden is caught in a lie, a Biden supporter might say, “That’s interesting that you suddenly care about lies, considering you support Trump!” Such a post is defending Biden, but it isn’t exactly approving of the lie. In our current case, we have people saying not just that other politicians have abused their power too, but that this was the most just action for DeSantis to take.

Perhaps it’s not much of a difference, but it does seem a bit more extreme to me.

 

Let’s try this again. Your post responded to a post asserting that what happened violated the First Amendment. You disagreed and commented that Disney got involved in politics and that Florida therefore took away its special privileges. I asked you for a link to a case supporting your legal argument that what happened does not violate the First Amendment. In the real world, a court would want you to support your assertion with case law. @QGator2414’s opinion would not be enough. So, please support your argument with a link— a case.

 

Huh? What are you talking about violated the first amendment?

Disney spoke. As they are allowed. Florida has done nothing to treat them differently than others. The state took away privileges others did not have because Disney pushed a false narrative about the state. Good luck if you think Disney is going to win a first amendment case. LOL!

 

About the only smart thing they did was have the original law apply to more than just Disney. That actually makes it a tougher case (as to that law). But they singled out Disney with all of the subsequent actions and were very clear about why they were doing it.

 

The action was carried out by someone on their side and it was against someone on the other side, which makes it even more just. Conventional laws and norms do not apply.

There are really no ideologies or consistent principles involved. In the case of tribalism those constructs are only secondary when needed and can change based upon the situation

 

As I've said before, there is an intellectual disconnect that makes it near impossible for him to follow things at times. Exhibit "A.":

Exhibit "B.":

 

How is the bill not a violation of Freedom of Speech? Some of you are such big fans of Desantis you are willing to support him no matter what he does or says. Even if it goes against your beliefs

”You got me on one thing, this bill does target one company. It targets the Walt Disney Company,” state Rep. Randy Fine, R-Palm Bay, told a House committee last April, which is included in the complaint.

Also quoted are Florida Sen. Joe Gruters: “Disney is learning lessons and paying the political price of jumping out there on an issue”; and former DeSantis spokesperson Christina Pushaw: “Go woke, go broke.”

Disney sues DeSantis, saying it is victim of retaliation

 

Do you have any first amendment case law to support the proposition that a state can “take away special privileges others d[o] not have because Disney pushed a false narrative about the state?” There are two elements to this question. First, was governance of Reedy Creek a “special privilege?” Second, can government take away those “special privileges”— the right of self governance in a special taxing district— because an entity speaks “a false narrative about the state?” Please cite your law and make your argument. “LOL” is not legal authority. It is an abbreviation for “laugh out loud.” If the proposition is laughable, then finding legal authority— case law— what courts use to decide cases—should be pretty easy.

 

Literally EVERY one of your takes is incorrect, all of them. If you set out to intentionally post misstatements of the law, you couldn't have gotten this more incorrect. It's embarrassing.

Pretend for a moment you're back in the day when your wife had just graduated from dental school and was looking for a place to build her dental office. Marion County was one of her considerations. Marion County got wind of this and advised her that, despite her husband, they really needed her clinic and, if she built her clinic there, the clinic would never have to pay real estate taxes and the normal signage rules wouldn't apply, along with other benefits. She agrees to this and it is all embodied in a special county ordinance and other written agreements.

She finds a vacant lot, spends hundreds of thousands of dollars building a state of the art clinic and erects a huge sign, 5 times the size the applicable ordinances normally allow. Everything is chugging along fine for decades. She gets the tax breaks, the residents are getting some level of dental care. Then one day the county commission takes some action your wife finds abhorrent. That night she changes her giant sign to read "Marion County Commissioners Are IDIOTS, Vote them all out." The following Tuesday said commission votes to revoke the ordinance that gave her the consideration to build there. The day after your new property tax bill comes in the mail and zoning wants to talk to you about your sign and the size of your parking lot.

All good?

 

Do you have any first amendment case law that the state Florida was not within their rights to remove a special district?

 

What a ridiculous waste of writing out this analogy. All good to you LOL!

 

Yes. But i am asking you r to support your position. I would add that you changed the facts in your question. But, the answer is yes

 

I knew it probably would be with you, but others might find it useful.

LOL!

You simply do not comprehend the subject matter...there's that disconnect rearing its ugly head.

 

Translation: "I don't even know where to begin to look, so I'm going to go full sneaky and turn this around on Duchen."

 

But it really wasn’t as smart as you give them credit. Because they knowingly limited the penalty to a select few districts based in date, which left thousands unaffected (like Daytona Beach Speedway, The Villages, etc.). And what I see as their biggest problem is that they explained the history to the law to he BECAUSE Disney spoke against the law. That’s retaliation.

But to your point, it might be the only thing that gives the Court a slice to draw a line of distinction and save DeSantis here. If the Court omits the emergency legislative session, omits the legislative history, and commentary on the legislation, omits the actual reach of the legislation (vs the mere words), Disney might be in trouble. It’s why I tell all my clients, the only certainty of litigation is that it is constantly fluid and unpredictable.

 

There might be contractual issues. Good luck with the FA angle…

 

It is a good thing you are not representing Disney…

 

I comprehend it just fine. But I don’t take serious the weak analogy by a blow hard attorney who is obsessed with taking cheap shots at me personally.