DeSantis vs. Disney

Disney's self-governing district, Reedy Creek, says Florida cannot dissolve it without paying off its debts - CNN

 

The right to state an opinion contrary to a governor's policy, and to do it freely without punishment, IS in the constitution! Again, if you can be punished because your statement is contrary to a governor's policy, BY DEFINITION your statement is NOT an example of free speech.

If a government says that you are free to vote how you choose, but your vote will not be secret and will be monitored by the government, and if you vote against the head of the government you will be fined and be subject to prison time, you in actuality are NOT free to vote how you choose. You don't seem to understand that.

I keep writing that, given the vast Republican support for fascist policies, it is overall a fascist leaning party, and your posts certainly support that thought. If you really believe what you have been writing in support of fascist actions, then you are a danger to our country.

 

What you are suggesting is that DeSantis has the right to offer public benefits, ie those paid for by you and me, in exchange for speech favorable to his own interests. I hope you agree that if he indeed has such a right, we need to amend the constitution to rectify that immediately.

 

If they had done this with all corporations under the deal then DeSantis would have much more of a constitutional leg to stand on. You have it ironically backwards.

 

There is no freedom of speech in China.

 

You should not be telling anyone that they lack understanding of anything.

 

The State probably can if it assumes the bond debt. Disney’s “privilege” was being on the hook for its own debt. The state just bought it.

 

See post 1260 again and then read this scenario. A GC poster invests in Reedy Creek bonds for his unvaccinated children. The bonds have value because they are backed by laws that allow the seller to raise and collect taxes. The Seller collects taxes to pay back the interest and the principal on the bond. This reliability increases the attractiveness and value of the bonds. Suddenly, the state removes the authority of the seller to raise money to pay back the bonds by eliminating its authority to collect taxes. This hurts the value of the bonds because a consideration for the purchaser in buying the bonds was that taxing authority. And it creates a risk of default because the seller has lost the source of revenue that the sale of the bonds was premised on. So, you see, the taxing authority is not a “privilege,” but a right with value. And the agreement between the bond holder and bond seller was impaired by the change in law. So, under this set of facts— which is what just happened— how does the bond debt get paid?

 

Disney disrespected DeSantis. So, It’s complicated…

 

Desantis and the Florida legislature acted rashly and now Disney is making them look small. For better (in this case) or worse (in other cases) it’s an entirely predictable outcome for a government vs big business spat

 

Yet another issue lol

 

Or in North Korea, under Trump's favorite tyrant, Kim Jong un.

 

That is the point. If Disney was so admirable for standing up for LGBTQIA+ rights, they should do it in China as well. Bet they won't though.

 

Why would they? They know the law in China does not permit free speech. Here, we all know the right to free speech bars governmental retaliation. Thus, there is nothing wrong with operating within the confines of the law in each locale.

 

Considering what DeSantis did to Disney in Florida, a state which supposedly tolerates free speech, imagine what a DeSantis in China would do where they don't even pretend to tolerate free speech.

 

The point is that Disney likes their money more than standing up for LGBT rights. They take a popular stance with their American fans and do nothing to upset their Chinese benefactors.

 

For the same reason every other multinational company does, particularly in consumer products. There are 1 billion people to sell Air Jordan’s to.

 

Same reason why whatever "free speech" changes Elon Musk makes on Twitter will not apply in China

 

You mean 1 Billion plus the entire population of the USA to sell Air Jordan’s to.

We often cite China at 1 billion, when their population is actually 1,400,000,000. We do the same with India when their population is 1,380,000,000. Those 780 million people we often leave out of our calculations when we talk about those countries, is the same amount of people in the USA and EU, combined.