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

[cato potatoe]

What did he get wrong?

It started early.  He went to Hollywood High School, and then Ivy League schools, then he went to work for the ADL and Barack Obama.  He hates the Citizens United decision.  He has no appreciation for the first amendment beyond the ability to twist it to his advantage.  Why on earth would you trust him to compare the facts of this case to Citizens United? 

[berdie]

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.

 

[Hoodat]

What did he get wrong @cato potatoe ? 

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

Here it is again:

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.

So explain exactly how Ron DeSantis is violating this?  Please be specific.

[catfish1957]

I made a brief stop by Fox,and watched a disgusting ambush interview by Jones on Hutchison.

I don't care for Hutchison, either, but the kid was using a Hannity/60 Minutes tactics.  Lost a lot of respect for LJ tonight.

Fox is truly imploding.

[Sighlass]

I seem to recall a certain President threatening certain companies if they moved out of country... I guess that was alright.

[Right_in_Virginia]

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.

Contract law be damned, right?

[Right_in_Virginia]

Here it is again:

So explain exactly how Ron DeSantis is violating this?  Please be specific.

I have been specific, down to the SC decision by Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy.  First Amendment rights and protections apply to corporations. Thusly, Disney can speak, tweet, lobby, raise money, et al. in opposition to proposed or signed legislation without retaliation from the governor.

[Hoodat]

I have been specific, down to the SC decision by Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy.  First Amendment rights and protections apply to corporations. Thusly, Disney can speak, tweet, lobby, raise money, et al. in opposition to proposed or signed legislation without retaliation from the governor.

That's not what Amendment I says.  Here it is again.  Read it first.  And then cite the exact wording that DeSantis is violating it.

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.

[Hoodat]

Contract law be damned, right?

Contract law?  Wow.  Tossing mud in every direction hoping it sticks to something.  Ok, I'll bite.  What contract is being violated?  Please be specific.

[roamer_1]

Contract law be damned, right?

Always when the contract is designed or operated in bad faith.

[Hoodat]

Always when the contract is designed or operated in bad faith.

The 'contract' in question here is one between Disney and Disney.  The level of dishonesty needed to adopt such an argument is significantly poignant.

[roamer_1]

The 'contract' in question here is one between Disney and Disney.  The level of dishonesty needed to adopt such an argument is significantly poignant.

Right. The Reedy Creek board, when DeSantis overturned it, as it's last act before the new board took over, granted Disney total control of everything in perpetuity... How's that for an oversight board in the bag?

What part of 'oversight' is misunderstood?

Were I DeSantis, there would be a sudden rash of road construction around that joint, that might have to last for years and years

[Right_in_Virginia]

Always when the contract is designed or operated in bad faith.

But it wasn't ----- not once in 26 years; until:

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

[Right_in_Virginia]

The 'contract' in question here is one between Disney and Disney.  The level of dishonesty needed to adopt such an argument is significantly poignant.

Nonsense.

[roamer_1]

But it wasn't ----- not once in 26 years; until:

Right... Until Disney finally went woke enough to piss off the legislature of FL.

... Where they found they weren't in control of Reedy Creek, and hadn't been for a long, long time.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Right... Until Disney finally went woke enough to piss off the legislature of FL.

The state's retaliation in response to a corporation's First Amendment rights is a no-no. 

Desantis better pray you're not subpoenaed. 

[cato potatoe]

That's not what Amendment I says.  Here it is again.  Read it first.  And then cite the exact wording that DeSantis is violating it.

There is no violation.  It's a bunch of jabber from partisans and overgrown Disney fanatics.  Problem is the lower court judge is a moonbat.  When he stalled the Stop Woke Act, he accused Florida of being in a parallel dimension from the TV show Stranger Things.  I think DeSantis will lose or be injuncted, only to win on appeal years later, assuming Trump in his incompetence has not facilitated a court-packing scenario.

[LMAO]

Is this an issue that would sell to the general electorate?  If you wanna make the case of the left grooming and transitioning children, you’d probably get more support than “I forced Disney out of Florida” assuming that ends up happening

[roamer_1]

The state's retaliation in response to a corporation's First Amendment rights is a no-no. 

Desantis better pray you're not subpoenaed. 

What bullcrap. Disney owning the members of its oversight board is the issue that needs remedy. And that oversight board giving Disney total control in perpetuity with no grounds for the state is a travesty that will not stand, SCOTUS or not.

[roamer_1]

Is this an issue that would sell to the general electorate?  If you wanna make the case of the left grooming and transitioning children, you’d probably get more support than “I forced Disney out of Florida” assuming that ends up happening

Disney is hemorrhaging from their woke preaching and homo grooming. Florida especially northern Florida, being very conservative, I can see this being a popular front.

[LMAO]

Disney is hemorrhaging from their woke preaching and homo grooming. Florida especially northern Florida, being very conservative, I can see this being a popular front.

So why not just let it be a grassroots effort like Bud Light? If Biden was doing this with a corporation that opposed his agenda, what would the reaction be?

[roamer_1]

So why not just let it be a grassroots effort like Bud Light? If Biden was doing this with a corporation that opposed his agenda, what would the reaction be?

It already is grassroots - But that cannot address Reedy Creek, which is the spear point for me as far as governmental interference... Government did Reedy Creek, and government needs to fix it. And in that, I am all for DeSantis.

[LMAO]

It already is grassroots - But that cannot address Reedy Creek, which is the spear point for me as far as governmental interference... Government did Reedy Creek, and government needs to fix it. And in that, I am all for DeSantis.

I did have Disney stock at one time. But after they embraced child grooming, I got rid of it.

That’s the kind of stuff I’d like to see versus government intervention. I do get the argument that if you’re getting special treatment from government,  the price of getting those favors is you have to toe the line of whoever is doling out those favors. Then that becomes an argument against any government/business alliance.

We just need to be careful. I’m very much against setting dangerous precedents

[Maj. Bill Martin]

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?

In this particular case, I think those kind of lawsuits are unlikely.  However, I think there's a pretty good argument that if a corporation is receiving special favors and making political arguments, it can be argued that the state is actually subsidizing that speech.  True state neutrality towards free speech requires the elimination of any special treatment.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I
That’s the kind of stuff I’d like to see versus government intervention. I do get the argument that if you’re getting special treatment from government,  the price of getting those favors is you have to toe the line of whoever is doling out those favors. Then that becomes an argument against any government/business alliance.

And that would be a good thing.