Republican presidential candidate Asa Hutchinson responds to DeSantis' row with Disney, says it's 'n

[Right_in_Virginia]

Fascinating how Trumpistas now want to give preferential treatment to certain corporations.  One would almost confuse them with the garden-variety liberals/progs who have done so for decades.

So trampling the First Amendment is okay if it's done with conservative boots?

[Hoodat]

Fascinating how Trumpistas now want to give preferential treatment to certain corporations.

It's what Democrats do.

[Hoodat]

So trampling the First Amendment is okay if it's done with conservative boots?

The First Amendment?  Do tell.  How precisely is the First Amendment being trampled here?  Please be specific.

(for reference:)

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

[catfish1957]

Violation of First Amendment protections are now "so what"?

So much for you not riding the "dumb train" today.  Try yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre and claim 1st amendment protection.

Which is about as decent of analogy as there is, when protecting our youth from groomers like Disney.

[GtHawk]

Except DeSantis's entire campaign is: "Florida: The Blueprint for America".  So the governor-wannabe president choosing corporate winners and losers based on his personal political strategy, potentially damning First Amendment protections and contract law in the process sure matter, bigly.

OMG! You mean that DeSantis wants to protect children on a national level as they do in Florida, and push for fiscal responsibility too? Holy crap you have convinced me I just have to vote for the guy that couldn't get things done by working with his majority in the house and senate to get laws passed instead of erasable EO's and rubber stamped every insane spending bill submitted by democrats....okay, okay just kidding, I just can't see me pulling the lever for Trump ever again. You know that saying fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me? Well with Trump there is no third time because that is the definition of insanity.

Now tell me how not voting for Trump is a vote for Brandon, I always enjoy a little pretzel logic. Pro tip pretzel logic is a polite term for BS.

[Kamaji]

OMG! You mean that DeSantis wants to protect children on a national level as they do in Florida, and push for fiscal responsibility too? Holy crap you have convinced me I just have to vote for the guy that couldn't get things done by working with his majority in the house and senate to get laws passed instead of erasable EO's and rubber stamped every insane spending bill submitted by democrats....okay, okay just kidding, I just can't see me pulling the lever for Trump ever again. You know that saying fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me? Well with Trump there is no third time because that is the definition of insanity.

Now tell me how not voting for Trump is a vote for Brandon, I always enjoy a little pretzel logic. Pro tip pretzel logic is a polite term for BS.

[roamer_1]

Violation of First Amendment protections are now "so what"?

He lost a case in court.
Again, so what?

[cato potatoe]

I assure you, I do.  And hiding behind "Reedy Creek" is clever, but it isn't going to work.

Given their extreme protestation, I have to wonder what Disney was hiding IN Reedy Creek.  The relationship was utterly corrupt, and not in the interest of visitors or residents.  For years, first responders have complained about inadequate funding for salaries and equipment.  Disney as primary taxpayer had the incentive to be as cheap as possible.  They don’t want state inspections on their monorails either, which should give everyone the warm fuzzies.  Oh sure, you can sue if something happens, but you will deal with Disney’s scumbag lawyers for years and years.

[LMAO]

What would the reaction here  be if Biden was doing the same thing to a company that opposed his agenda?

[Right_in_Virginia]

So much for you not riding the "dumb train" today.  Try yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre and claim 1st amendment protection.

Which is about as decent of analogy as there is, when protecting our youth from groomers like Disney.

I'm not questioning the political motivation, I'm questioning the method.  Why, as a "conservative" aren't you?

[Right_in_Virginia]

Given their extreme protestation, I have to wonder what Disney was hiding IN Reedy Creek.  The relationship was utterly corrupt, and not in the interest of visitors or residents.  For years, first responders have complained about inadequate funding for salaries and equipment.  Disney as primary taxpayer had the incentive to be as cheap as possible.

This could well be, but it has nothing to do with the actions against Disney the Governor chose to take.

In his own book, DeSantis essentially admits that he retaliated against Disney in a manner that clearly violates its First Amendment rights. He does not cite any illegal behavior on the company’s part — simply its political views. “Once Disney declared war on Florida families,” DeSantis writes of Disney’s opposition to the law, “it was clear to me that the company’s executives in Burbank had not considered the lack of real leverage that Disney has over the State of Florida.” That “leverage” included the fact that Disney couldn’t easily pick up and move its massive footprint, as well as the special privileges the company enjoys by effectively running its own local government — the Reedy Creek Improvement District.

The district was established in 1967 by an act of the Florida Legislature and grants Disney favorable financial terms, including a special tax status. DeSantis targeted this longstanding arrangement only after Disney publicly expressed its opposition to the “Don’t Say Gay” bill — an obvious violation of Disney’s First Amendment rights.

In fact, DeSantis writes that it “would have been unthinkable” to get the Florida Legislature to “re-evaluate” or “eliminate” the district “just a few weeks before Disney executives made the fateful decision to take sides in the woke culture wars.”


https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/desantis-disney-first-amendment-rights-unconstitutional-rcna81974

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

So trampling the First Amendment is okay if it's done with conservative boots?

How is Ron trampling the first amendment? Disney employees still have the right to speak.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

The problem with the lawsuit is the remedy.  Essentially, a court would have to hold that Florida is required to give Disney permanent and unique preferential treatment, with more rights than any other new or existing business in the state.  The higher up the case goes, the tougher an argument it becomes.

[catfish1957]

I'm not questioning the political motivation, I'm questioning the method.  Why, as a "conservative" aren't you?

Big difference in speech and POV, versus tangible actions and content that harms children. I hope you can see that.

8 year old grandkid on my lap yesterday asked why two men were kissing.  How do I answer that?

[cato potatoe]

This could well be, but it has nothing to do with the actions against Disney the Governor chose to take.

Speech can make a corporation unworthy of special treatment.  Call it retaliation if you wish, but it doesn’t matter.  Had Disney come out in favor of white supremacy, no reasonable person would say they deserve a unique version of corporate welfare, courtesy of the state of FL.

[Right_in_Virginia]

How is Ron trampling the first amendment? Disney employees still have the right to speak.

So, too,, according to the Supreme Court, does a corporation ----- without retaliation from the government.

[catfish1957]

So, too,, according to the Supreme Court, does a corporation ----- without retaliation from the government.

lol...  been watching the enviro-scam, and government's war on the fossil fuel industry?  So much for that premise.

[Kamaji]

Poor widdle Trumpistas; so upset that big, bad, mean RDS is trying to strip special privileges and treatments from Disney, forcing it to live by its wits alone just like any other private corporation.

Disney attempted to use that privilege in connection with its attempts to continue to subvert the reasonable values and rights of the parents of children in Florida, and there is nothing unconservative with stripping that power from Disney as a consequence.

Disney has proven itself to not be a good steward of the privileges provided to it, and there is nothing wrong with stripping those privileges from it as a consequence.

Only a Trumpista would think otherwise.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Speech can make a corporation unworthy of special treatment.

No, it cannot.  Political free speech is the very essence of the First Amendment ----- and the Supreme Court upheld that First Amendment protections apply to corporate entities.

The Citizens United case was a 5-4 decision supported by Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy as the tie-breaker.  The decision was applauded by conservatives.

Disney has the absolute right to express its opposition in any number of ways. For instance, it can financially back other like-minded groups, lobby Florida lawmakers, buy advertisements, produce a show to explain why it thinks the law damages society — or just tweet out a statement.

The Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United case supports Disney’s claim. Many argue (and we agree) that the decision unfairly skewed the ability of wealthy donors to influence elections. But the fact remains that under current Supreme Court case law, corporations have First Amendment rights when it comes to political speech. That means the government cannot retaliate against a corporation for exercising its right to free speech concerning proposed or enacted legislation.

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/desantis-disney-first-amendment-rights-unconstitutional-rcna81974

[cato potatoe]

Written by Norman Eisen at MSNBC, a democrat.      Keep it coming RIV. 

[Kamaji]

Written by Norman Eisen at MSNBC, a democrat.      Keep it coming RIV. 

[Right_in_Virginia]

The problem with the lawsuit is the remedy.  Essentially, a court would have to hold that Florida is required to give Disney permanent and unique preferential treatment, with more rights than any other new or existing business in the state.  The higher up the case goes, the tougher an argument it becomes.

Wrong.  The remedy is retaliation for protected political speech will not stand.  What happens next would be up to the governor.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Written by Norman Eisen at MSNBC, a democrat.      Keep it coming RIV.

What did he get wrong @cato potatoe ? 

Did Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy also get it wrong?

[roamer_1]

What would the reaction here  be if Biden was doing the same thing to a company that opposed his agenda?

Happens all the time...

BUT, to the direct question... Removing privilege and leveling the field, and causing a corporation to lose special exemption and fall under regulatory scrutiny is something I will always be *FOR*

Squaring  and leveling the playing field is a good thing... That does not stand in the way of being *FOR* deregulation and small government.

[roamer_1]

The problem with the lawsuit is the remedy.  Essentially, a court would have to hold that Florida is required to give Disney permanent and unique preferential treatment, with more rights than any other new or existing business in the state.  The higher up the case goes, the tougher an argument it becomes.

That's right. Failure to regulate being remedied by regulating - A direct responsibility of the state, which had been neglected through the means of a 'Good ol Boy' agreement certainly has no right to exist in perpetuity. Which implies in the least, that the favor exists only while the state considers them a 'good ol boy'.

What happens when a law suit comes against the state for NOT doing their duty?
Is the state liable for say, a monorail wreck where injury occurs, and the fact is found that the train did not meet state requirements in construction and maintenance, being held exempt... What then?