DeSantis vs. Disney

“While you, your company, employees and diverse fans face authoritarian, anti-business and culture war attacks from extremists in Florida, we in Fort Bend are more ready to welcome the Disney family with thousands of good-paying jobs and billions of dollars of investments,"

Fort Bend County Judge KP George

 

One problem: Fort Bend County is in Texas. So Disney would face the same exact sort of stunts from their extreme right-wing government lol.

 

I hope Disney makes your “special privileges” and “misrepresent a policy” arguments and your “political consequences” arguments to the courts. It will be welcome to see if they courts adopt these exceptions to First Amendment Free speech. Or explains why it is not free speech and that government can exactly punishment for it. Oh, and perhaps you can explain why Disney being granted the right to self government in exchange for developing a city is a “special privilege” when it was an inducement to Disney to locate here and build the “city.” Then, when it is built, the government backs out on its deal. Like I said to 715 and you; you need to watch what you say. We all do. Because you never know when you will be next. When what you say will be deemed “political” and subject to “consequences.” When your business is deemed a “special privilege.” Your know why i keep saying this? Because no court, and not this SCOTUS, would ever accept them as a justification for this law. What a vapid, valueless argument from someone who considers vaccination against serious disease to be authoritarian. The real problem is that this misuse of power is popular. And that you cheer it’s popularity. Just or be clear: I do not respect your views or those twisting like pretzels to justify it. Your support is pushing this country closer to autocratic rule and I will not stand by as this country continues to resemble Weimar Germany without calling those out who stand for this. My grandfather did not get gassed and shot in France and my father did not go to war to defend these kinds of values you are espousing. Freedom to you is the freedom to impose your beliefs and values on those who do not share them. That is what DeSantis stands for. The champion of the white straight person aggrieved by those who are different and disagree with them. Alexy Navalny is on jail for “political consequences.” Could DeSantis arrest the CEO of Disney? Why not if political speech has consequences? What are the limits of those consequences?

 

But this thread goes to 11…

 

I understand this position.

The issues are:
1. Whether this in fact violates the law, considering the unique nature of Disney’s treatment in Florida.

2. Whether Disney, a California corporation, was exerting or was going to exert such pressure to influence Florida legislation contrary to the will of the voters that the Florida voters via the government has the right to defend themselves to an extent.

3. Whether this was, in fact, retaliation, or this was a case of Disney providing Florida with the political cover to eliminate their special tax district, this is admittedly the weakest point, and frankly I don’t even buy it, but I can see the State of Florida making this case.

There is a legitimate question as to whether the State of Florida crossed a line here. I just don’t think it’s clear one way or the other. And I don’t trust the people on this forum telling me that it’s clear.

If Democrats wouldn’t pressure corporations to cave to their political demands, including via government, I think this would be an obvious case where Republicans shouldn’t exercise this sort of authority, even though it may involve a gray area. There are certain things you really shouldn’t play with unless it’s a last resort.

 

Calm down, duchen.

Every lawyer on this thread has acknowledged to me that no rights are limitless. Lines are drawn.

That doesn’t mean we should dump the First Amendment in the garbage. It just means we have to learn where these rights begin and end. That’s what the Courts are for.

I’ve said repeatedly I’d rather if nobody did this. I’d rather live in a country where nobody did this. That’s part of the reason I want Disney to sue. We would get clarity on the record as to whether it violates the First Amendment, if it doesn’t, hopefully the people react and call for policy that prohibits this sort of thing, so that NOBODY does it.

 

You're kidding us, right?

Do you not get why we have the First Amendment?

"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.
* * *
Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard.

It seems trite but necessary to say that the First Amendment to our Constitution was designed to avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings. There is no mysticism in the American concept of the State or of the nature or origin of its authority. We set up government by consent of the governed, and the Bill of Rights denies those in power any legal opportunity to coerce that consent. Authority here is to be controlled by public opinion, not public opinion by authority."
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)

 

Youre right gator_lawyer, the founders wanted corporations to flex their political influence and be the ones who run the country despite the people.

I understand why we have a bill of rights. I understand why complete Democracy without individual rights is dangerous.

I also apparently understand nuance, unlike you. Spare me your condescension.

 

Uh oh, @duchen, he's trying to make me defend Citizens United.

 

Is this a tacit admission you don’t like Citizens United?

 

That's not the issue and you know it! The issue is punishing Disney for it's speech opposing DeSantis' policies. You and others have dishonestly tried the "repeal the unfair advantage Disney was given" straw man approach, which you have done because you KNOW that DeSantis is doing this not to make things more fair, but instead, to punish Disney for opposing him.

You and others should go ahead and be honest and admit that you like DeSantis' fascist move to punish Disney for disagreeing with him and hope this police state action will intimidate and prevent other people and businesses from doing the same thing. You want no dissent from fascist/GOP policies in our society and want to punish those who publicly disagree. You would fit in well in Russia.

 

More knowingly false straw man garbage!

 

The left is quite familiar with intimidating dissent into submission and silence.

 

Congratulations for cheering on fascism!

 

I already answered that question in this thread.
DeSantis vs. Disney

 

Nope, I think the way this works is if you think the First Amendment should be interpreted more narrowly than me, as you do with Citizens United you’re a Fascist and you have no principles.

 

I think, as per usual, you don't fully understand the nature of the conversation and should sit this one out. My preferred route wouldn't narrow the scope of the First Amendment.

 

And as usual, whenever anyone gets you on the ropes, you resort to ad hominem, condescension, and dismissiveness. You rely on your status as a lawyer as a crutch when you argue or debate.

If you need to say or insinuate you’re a lawyer to win an argument, that speaks to your quality as a lawyer.

 

The problem with you is that you think you have me "on the ropes" because you lack the knowledge to fully understand the conversation and the humility to recognize the limitations of your knowledge.

I don't deny that I can be condescending towards you. But it doesn't stem from concern. It stems from irritation that you are arrogant enough to think you have a better understanding of constitutional law, particularly First Amendment law, than me, when this is literally what I do. And because of that arrogance, you spend your time in these discussions trying to ineptly blunder your way into "gotchas" that only betray your limited understanding of the legal issues being discussed.

I don't say or insinuate that I'm a lawyer to prove that I understand the legal issues at hand. The law I've posted in here more than speaks for itself. I do it to make you understand that I have specialized knowledge, training, and experience that you don't have. Because you come into these discussions with your mind made up, argue your stance until you're blue in the face, and continually double down when more knowledgeable people try to explain where the flaws are in your knowledge or understanding.

And fine, I get it. This is the internet. Everybody has an opinion. I'm sure that I can be guilty of the same behavior on subjects where I'm not an expert. So if that's what you want to do, have at it. But don't be surprised when I talk down to you. Because you are not my equal in these sorts of conversations. And you're not trying to have a good faith discussion. You want to "win" the debate. If you actually seemed interested in learning more instead of looking for "gotchas," I'd have a lot more patience for you. But that would require intellectual curiosity and humility, not arrogance and certainty.

 

The Perry case you cited was good legal argument, though I don’t necessarily think it’s entirely determinative to this case, it was persuasive, and I said as much.

But whenever you say that I just don’t “understand something,” I “lack knowledge,” or I “lack expertise,” if you are trying to persuade me or anybody like me, you refusing to fill in those gaps, and simply saying those things is a failure in persuasion on your part. There is no rebutting comments like that, I’m confronted with the choice of trusting you or getting snarky with you.

And if you’re trying to just “win the argument” by saying those things, that’s a lazy tactic that speaks negatively to your quality as a lawyer. If you’re an expert in an area, you shouldn’t have to essentially resort to calling people stupid to make your point.