Disney Sues Desantis

I'm not buying that. If Disney buys more land and Orange County creates a special district for Disney you know that those up in Tallahassee won't just throw their hands up and say that there's nothing they can do

 

Contributing to the delinquency of a minor.

 

And is the governor vested with the power to decide what qualifies as delinquency?

 

I never stated he did. Based on my understanding, DeSantis appointed the Central Florida Tourism Oversight district after the state legislature dissolved the former governing board of said district. Disney sued DeSantis falsely claiming this was a retaliatory action for their criticism of his policies regarding public school curriculum. The Federal court threw out Disney’s ridiculous suit. Kudos to Governor DeSantis for standing up to woke corporate interests.

 

What gives the Governor the right to dictate PRIVATE business interests and to retaliate against that private business when their interests don't conform to his own personal interests???

 

Apparently the federal trial judge that ruled exactly this way. I hopefully the decision will be successfully appealed, because we see how evil the abuse of government power can be.

 

They did appeal.

 

I think you have two mutually exclusive arguments here: 1) DeSantis didn’t go after Disney for taking woke positions, and 2) DeSantis is standing up to woke corporate interests.

If the first is true, then I agree that we have no problem. The state should be able to determine their own contracts. But if the second is true, the first can’t be true, and the action violated the first amendment. Either DeSantis acted against the woke ideology or he acted legally, but he can’t have done both.

 

DeSantis obviously acted legally. Anyone still questioning this is wearing a tin foil hat. If he violated Disney’s first amendment rights, someone should let the judge know. These two things are not mutually exclusive, no matter how butthurt you are about the situation. Both can be perfectly true and in this case, have already been ruled as such.

In fact, this is a great example of how the LGBTQ+ contingent believes they can do whatever they want. Not only did they get smacked down, they should really stop grooming kids.

 

I believe the judge actually ruled that DeSantis was not motivated by Disney’s speech. Again, if that is true, we have no problem. However, if he was fighting an anti-woke campaign, using state power to wage this battle would be a textbook violation of the first amendment.

“In a 17-page order, Judge Allen Winsor of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida in Tallahassee agreed that the change “works to Disney’s significant detriment,” but that the company could not point to the motivation behind the legislation to say it was unfairly targeted.”

Also, read this from Judge Windsor’s decision:

“But as Disney acknowledges, it is not the district's only landowner, and other landowners within the district are affected by the same laws. See State v. Reedy Creek Imp. Dist., 216 So. 2d 202, 205 (Fla. 1968) (noting that "Successful completion and operation of the District no doubt will greatly aid the Disney interest and its contemplated Disneyworld project [but that] it is obvious that to a lesser degree the contemplated benefits of the District will inure to numerous inhabitants of the District in addition to persons in the Disney complex"). As for SB 4-C (the earlier law), it applies to "any independent special district established by a special act prior to the date of ratification of the Florida Constitution," a category comprising Disney's district and at least several others.”

Note Windsor’s argument is that Disney was not singled out. And if they weren’t singled out, then this move could not have been about battling delinquency of a minor, unless you want to argue that all the other special districts conceived before 1968 also happen to be sexualizing minors.

Further, go look at DeSantis’ defense arguments. I bet you won’t find a single one that admits this was aimed at Disney because of their woke agenda, a fact that needs explaining if such an action is as obviously legal as you claim. The state’s argument simply isn’t that punishing Disney for their speech is legal; it is instead that they didn’t punish Disney for their speech.


Note: I have no idea why half the text is showing strikethrough, but I don’t seem to know how to fix it. Apologies. Follow-up edit: Fixed it!

 

The judge has already ruled this didn’t happen. I struggle to see the purpose of your post. Are you challenging the judge’s decision? Are you insinuating DeSantis cannot in any way, shape or form stand up to woke corporatism without violating the 1st Amendment?

 

Very strong opinions on what these movies contain without having watched the actual movies.

 

The movie in question sucks ass. That seems to be the prevailing thought by most who’ve seen it. Why would you actually sit through that?

 

That wasn't what he ruled. What you're quoting isn't written in a clear way. His ruling was that Disney is not allowed to point to the motivation behind the legislation, not that they lacked evidence of motive.

Yeah, this is the part of the decision that's just absurd.

 

Because i have two young kids who watch Disney. But that's not the point at all and you know it. You absorbed the propaganda and formed an opinion on what was in Wish without having actually seen the movie. Maybe reflect on that instead of worrying about why I watched a shitty movie.

 

I guess I am a bit confused now myself. I understood you were making an argument that the state was permitted to punish Disney for taking a pro-woke stance. Perhaps I was mistaken, as it now seems you are making the claim that DeSantis did not do this.

And actually yes, I do not think DeSantis can use the punitive power of the state against woke corporatism in any form without violating the first amendment. That is not to say that the state cannot punish Disney for any reason, but it cannot punish them specifically for taking a particular position on proposed legislation, regardless of the nature of that legislation.

 

My opinion would not change if I saw the movie. I understand the concept the character Star is representing in the movie. The fact that Disney chose not to gender this character, which is a deviation from previous iterations of Star, is a change. The character Star isn’t new. The “Wishing Star” plot device is seen in previous Disney animated feature films like Mickey Mouse and Baby Pandas. In “Jiminy Cricket” Star is referred to as a “she.”

 

DeSantis did not dissolve the old board. The legislature did that. DeSantis installed a new board. Perfectly legal. Has zero to do with free speech and even if it did, Disney would have to prove DeSantis violated their 1st amendment rights and it doesn’t look like they can do that.

So… if your contention is that DeSantis somehow violated Disney’s 1st amendment rights, then I’d say at the very least you have a monumental mountain to climb legally. Good luck with that. If your contention is not that then WTF are we talking about and why? Sounds like you’re in full on butthurt mode.

 

So DeSantis isn't fighting against "woke"?

 

Of course, he is. You’ll just have to accept he has done so legally.