Xbox put some kind of energy saving device in their game system and it was deemed "Woke" by those type people. So who the hell knows
Universal probably didn't realize I retired 6 years ago........Shingle Creek was in my jurisdiction I would have been their inspector if I still worked for Orange County. They probably heard rumors about me LOL.
Whether they are woke or not is not the question. There are thousands of woke businesses in every state in the country. Universal is one of them. But universal management is smart enough to realize that they make a truckloads of money from people who are not woke. They are also smart enough to know that “what the governing body giveth, the governing body can taketh away”. I can’t speak for the entire executive team there but the ones that I do know realize that woke is reality in the minds of their prospective employees. They also know that going too far with woke policy is not good for efficiency and for quality delivery of the product. Everything in the culture becomes about the individual employee rather than a focus of success. They know that they have to balance this. What the question really is is whether a company is woke AND stupid at the same time. Disney was too stupid to realize that Reedy Creek was not a right that they had constitutional protection for. Reedy Creek was a unique and special authority that the state had granted them. There was nothing in the original agreement to protect Disney from the state changing their mind for any reason. That’s how Disney was too big for their britches. We have economic development incentives with local/state governments at all of our operating locations. Some are programs that are open to all and some are uniquely crafted for us. Either way, we know that if we want to keep those incentives we are not going to anything publicly to let the city/county/state even start to think about taking them away. And BTW, all of our incentives, abatements, and cash payments combined don’t even start to sniff the value of Reedy Creek to Disney. This was a huge blunder for Disney financially and the only benefit they got was to make a bunch of lefties happy, which probably is offset by the alienation of their conservative customer base to boot.
Ford lost me on the Raptor as soon as they went with the Eco-boost V6. Again, foolish business decision.
wow, a celebration of cowering to big gov & simultaneously a celebration of big gov getting private companies to cower & tow the line. p.s. goal post move for the trifecta.
Yes or No Question: Do you think the government is allowed to revoke voluntary or discretionary benefits as retaliation for a private person's or entity's speech?
For businesses, yes. It’s part of the deal when we accept government incentives for building or relocating our operations there. We are there to bring jobs to and be good partners in the community. It’s really pretty simple, don’t mischaracterize and criticize good laws that you don’t like simply for political idealogy. The laws in question here were of no impact or consequence to the Walt Disney company. Again, im sure that economic benefit of Reedy Creek over the years has to be in the 10’s of Billions. It is a benefit that very few other businesses have ever been granted before or since. Reedy Creek Improvement District was a granted exemption from state law that was given by the state and could therefore be taken by the state. Any way you cut it, what Disney did, and then refused to correct when it was brought to their attention, was a massively stupid business decision. That decision has provided no financial benefit to the Walt Disney Company while simultaneously costing them tens of millions of $/yr in profit. As if this isn’t good enough they have alienated approximately half of their business base which cannot be measured at the current time. All of this on top of national economic pandemic and post pandemic policies that virtually guaranteed an economic downturn. Stupid, stupid and more stupid. The Disney management was stupid and that is why many are no longer there.
So you're asserting that the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause provides less protection to businesses than it does people? They accurately summed up a bad law. And last I checked, the First Amendment protects your right, my right, and Disney's right to criticize laws that don't personally impact any of us. Am I wrong on that?
It’s not cowering. Disney knew the rules of the game. We all do. Government money, whether it be tax abatements, exemptions, or cash payments come with strings. Many of those strings are invisible. All of those strings represent benefits that are revocable. Most companies know this and operate within margins which don’t start nonsense like this. We most certainly cut the crap when the local or state government informs us of the repercussions of continuing where we have little to no legal challenge. It’s just bad business.
it's precisely the rules of the game that make this orthogonal to conservatism. GAAP is not constitutionally protected. If oil & gas companies weigh in on fossil fuel laws, should Biden punish them by changing oil & gas GAAP? Should a college be able to fire a professor if he sez a law is communist just cuz she was warned not to? They'd be bad bidness decisions. In Colorado, many laws are passed by direct vote & interested parties spend millions on ads. Should they have prvialges revoked when they take a position contrary to the Governor's as they frequently do? A conservative is unambiguously against gov doling out consequences for free expression of private bidness, that should be especially so when that criticism is directed toward gov. You know this. Think about it.
You are correct on that. Disney was not charged with any crime nor charged any fines. They just lost a business benefit that had been granted to them and only them. They had plenty of warning that the state could and would revoke that benefit. If Disney’s corporate lawyers didn’t under stand this, then they are as incompetent as you are hard headed. You, as a lawyer know you’re blowing smoke on this. It’s not a First Amendment issue and way down in that brain of yours you know that. I seriously doubt that if you were their General Counsel that you would have told them; “oh yeah, this is a great idea guys. Let’s play chicken with the state when I have no legal avenue available to get you out of the mess when your car goes off the road and slams into a building. I think you’re a pretty smart guy. You would have quickly realized that this wasn’t a hill than any of them wanted to die on. As it was, many of them did die on that hill.
All of the examples that you state are in reference to laws and regulations that all live by. Disney had a massive special exemption to the laws and policies that all other businesses he’d to abide by. It was a special privilege that they had enjoyed for 50 years that no one else received. Their right to free speech wasn’t infringed upon. They were simply not only to get special treatment any more. To be frank, I’m very surprised that you of all people would be supportive of this exemption in the first place. It was unfair. Sea World never got it. Busch Gardens never got it. NONE of the smaller parks ( Gatorland, Legoland, Fun Spot and many failed parks) ever got it. Universal is just now getting a scaled back version. Disney was granted a competitive advantage by the state. Do you of all people tell me that you support that?
NOT TRUE. Oil & Gas acct only applies to that industry. In my example, the college is acting alone. No idea why you are defending this. Here, let's make it simple. The Fla government should not give a company a special district & then take it away b/c of the company's position on a bill. NEVER. 1a. gov should not be the 1 rewarding or doling out consequences for a private company's political speech, views etc. 'ats the customers, employees, & investors job.....jesus, man. This is super str8 forward. you've somehow been enchanted with wokism to the pt that you can't see that you are pissing on a pillar of our constitution & country. maybe a visual will wake you from your weird stupor.... If/when fla has a gov & he takes a special dist away cuz a firm complains about a law allowing trans girls to compete against girls or allowing drag queens in kindergartens, maybe you'll get it.
As a First Amendment attorney, I know a few things. Here are a couple things I know based on precedent: The restriction on bill inserts cannot be upheld on the ground that Consolidated Edison is not entitled to freedom of speech. In First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 98 S.Ct. 1407, 55 L.Ed.2d 707 (1978), we rejected the contention that a State may confine corporate speech to specified issues. That decision recognized that “[t]he inherent worth of the speech in terms of its capacity for informing the public does not depend upon the identity of its source, whether corporation, association, union, or individual.” Id., at 777, 98 S.Ct., at 1416. Because the state action limited protected speech, we concluded that the regulation could not stand absent a showing of a compelling state interest. Id., at 786, 98 S.Ct., at 1421.1 The First and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee that no State shall “abridg[e] the freedom of speech.” See Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495, 500–501, 72 S.Ct. 777, 779–780, 96 L.Ed. 1098 (1952). Freedom of speech is “indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth,” Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 375, 47 S.Ct. 641, 648, 71 L.Ed. 1095 (1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring), and “the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market . . . .” Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630, 40 S.Ct. 17, 22, 63 L.Ed. 1173 (1919) (Holmes, J., dissenting).2 The First and Fourteenth Amendments remove “governmental restraints from the arena of public discussion, putting the decision as to what views shall be voiced largely into the hands of each of us, in the hope that use of such freedom will ultimately produce a more capable citizenry and more perfect polity . . . .” Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 24, 91 S.Ct. 1780, 1786, 29 L.Ed.2d 284 (1971). This Court has emphasized that the First Amendment “embraces at the least the liberty to discuss publicly and truthfully all matters of public concern . . . .” Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88, 101–102, 60 S.Ct. 736, 744, 84 L.Ed. 1093 (1940); see Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214, 218, 86 S.Ct. 1434, 1436, 16 L.Ed.2d 484 (1966). In the mailing that triggered the regulation at issue, Consolidated Edison advocated the use of nuclear power. The Commission has limited the means by which Consolidated Edison may participate in the public debate on this question and other controversial issues of national interest and importance. Thus, the Commission's prohibition of discussion of controversial issues strikes at the heart of the freedom to speak. Consol. Edison Co. of New York v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of N.Y., 447 U.S. 530, 533–35 (1980). We start with the given premise that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits states from enacting laws “abridging the freedom of speech.” U.S. Const. amend. I. The United States Supreme Court has long recognized that the First Amendment prohibits not only direct burdens on speech, but also indirect burdens that are created when the government conditions receipt of a benefit on foregoing constitutionally-protected speech. Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593, 597, 92 S.Ct. 2694, 33 L.Ed.2d 570 (1972); Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513, 518–19, 78 S.Ct. 1332, 2 L.Ed.2d 1460 (1958). This principle, known as the unconstitutional conditions doctrine, acknowledges that the government, having no obligation to furnish a benefit, nevertheless cannot force a citizen to choose between a benefit and free speech. Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic & Institutional Rights, Inc., 547 U.S. 47, 59–60, 126 S.Ct. 1297, 164 L.Ed.2d 156 (2006); Perry, 408 U.S. at 597, 92 S.Ct. 2694. Such a choice will tend to penalize a constitutionally-protected right. Planned Parenthood Ass'n of Hidalgo Cnty., Tex., Inc. v. Suehs, 692 F.3d 343, 348–49 (5th Cir. 2012). This would be a slam-dunk case if Florida hadn't done one smart thing in the course of all this abject stupidity. The Legislature made the original bill apply to more than just Disney. Under the O'Brien rule (at least as the Eleventh Circuit interprets it), that might just save the initial law. We'll see. But the idea that the government can strip a corporation or a private citizen of a discretionary benefit in retaliation for protected speech without running afoul of the First Amendment is completely wrong.
