Disney Sues Desantis

It has long been settled that the first amendment protects corporations. E.g. NAACP v. Button.

CU was more concerned with whether the corporations could be subject to a higher level of restrictions than a natural person in a sensitive area like campaign finance, where first amendment interests clash with anti-corruption interests.

There's arguments on both sides of that, but the general idea that corporations have first amendment protections is not disputed.

 

I agree with all that - did not mean to suggest to the contrary. Parenthetically, I see no valid argument that corporations have the same exact rights as natural persons, despite CU

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...is-disney-lawsuit-wokeness-donald-trump-2024/
Scott, Rubio and McCarthy have all come out against DeSantis on this, but inasmuch as he has the arrogance associated with believing he's the smartest guy in the room, he won't care. Silver lining: his candidacy for president is doomed, and the disintegrating GOP will be stuck with Trump.

"When the Walt Disney Co. went looking for evidence to feature in its new lawsuit against Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, its lawyers found much of what they needed in DeSantis’s own recently published memoir.

" Buried in Disney’s complaint against DeSantis is something surprising. Numerous quotes taken from “The Courage to be Free” appear to support the company’s central allegation: that the Republican governor improperly wielded state power to punish Disney’s speech criticizing his policies, violating the First Amendment.

"Memoirs by presidential aspirants often lay out a blueprint for their coming candidacies. DeSantis’s does, too. It boasts extensively about his war on Disney to advertise how he would marshal the powers of the presidency against so-called woke elites.

"Disney’s lawsuit cites exactly these passages. DeSantis — who signed a law taking control of Disney’s special self-governing district, and moved to nullify the company’s efforts to work around it — repeatedly flaunts the truth: These were retaliation against Disney for opposing his “don’t say gay” law limiting classroom discussion of sex and gender."

 

Can intentional violation of civil rights by an elected official be considered a criminal offense?

 

If not, it should be. Particularly where intent is shown.

In reality, they probably have both civil and criminal immunity. (not a lawyer and I hope I’m wrong, but I doubt it).

Certainly at a state level nothing is happening in deep red states. In extreme cases, the DOJ would have to step in to enforce the law of the land and protect civil liberties - but I’d still think prosecuting the individual elected official (civilly or criminally) would be a steep hill unless they started violating judges’s orders after exhausting legal options (in cases so crazy even the Supreme Court wouldn’t be sympathetic to take them up).

 

And then there’s this. Words can’t express the cruelty that men, primarily, inflict upon women. May those who vote for such bills, or approve of them, rot in Hell. If there is one, they will.

Because of Florida abortion laws, she carried her baby to term knowing he would die | CNN

 

Yes, but not in the way you're thinking.
Deprivation Of Rights Under Color Of Law

 

is Disney considered a "person"? If DeS deprived Disney of their freedom of speech, does that not qualify under the definition (assuming Disney has same rights as a "person")

Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials.

 

Opinion | The ‘Woke Mind Virus’ Is Eating Away at Republicans’ Brains

Some hear the world “woke” and react like Pavlovian dogs.

 

They're really, really obvious about this stuff:

 

It is rather ironic those tossing around the phrase “mind virus” seem to so consistently feed at the trough of manipulative GOP talking points.

 

Practically speaking, they're not going to prosecute a governor for this. Legally speaking, since we're talking about enacted laws instead of some sort of act, I don't know that it would apply.

 

They are lost in the desert now that Tucker's left with his tail between his legs. They'll need someone new to tell them what to get outraged about, though DeSantis is doing a good job with his woke/transgender nonsense.

 

Florida Gov DeSantis Signs Bill That Nullifies Disney Last-Minute Agreements

The Reedy Creek district was created in the 1960s and largely gave Disney self-governance power. “The reason why the Legislature had to act was not because of anything we did,” DeSantis said during a news conference marking the end of the 60-day legislative session.

“It was basically borne out of Disney’s arrogance, that they would be able to subcontract around the duly enacted laws of the state of Florida. That’s wrong.”

The law would allow DeSantis appointees to the renamed Central Florida Tourism Oversight District board to reconsider the agreements.

DeSantis made the appointments after the Legislature passed a measure in February giving him control. Under the bill signed Friday, special districts would be prohibited from complying with development agreements executed three months or less before new laws take effect that change how district board members are selected.

 

What in the literal hell is going on here? I now fully expect to later wake up to the headline, “DeSantis signs law nullifying 9-0 USSC decision that ruled that the state cannot retaliate against Disney for political speech.”

 

I have yet to see any detailed legal analysis from lawyers with specific subject matter expertise. You usually see that somewhere on the internet with any high profile suit.

Then it occurred to me that such expertise (Florida land use development law) would likely reside almost exclusively in big Florida firms that would never risk alienating state government. Land use is technical with legal standards but also highly linked to political power, which likely reflects some of the Administration's confidence, as they can exert more pressure here.

Anyway, that's my speculation. Hope the briefing is online. I don't have that subject matter expertise, but feel like I could get a read on the legal merits there. Also will be interesting to see whether a big Florida firm lines up against DeSantis. Normally any of them would represent Disney, and many do, and may need to risk retaliation to keep that relationship in other practice areas. But local counsel will be necessary for strategic reasons if nothing else

 

Look up a channel named legal mindset on youtube.

 

Thanks. I usually don't do video, I prefer to read, but I may go there if I can't find anywhere to read

 

@GatorJMDZ Is your disagree because you'd rather read than do video or do you disagree with his legal opinion?

 

The latter. I find him to be unwatchable...heavy on blowing his own horn, thin on analysis.