....says it's 'not the role of government' to punish a business you disagree with
Wasn't this once a cornerstone "conservative" principle?
No. But when the 'punishment' is simply taking away privileges previously awarded that business, not awarded equally to other businesses, the point is moot.
That privilege was awarded to a family friendly, wholesome company... Which it is no more.
Hutchinson is a loser. If Walmart started pushing Arkansas to sell castration to its schoolchildren, the state would be within its rights to remove any welfare granted to the company.
Where is this "wholesomeness" mentioned and defined in the agreement? Where in the agreement is the government's right to takeover if the private company strayed from this "wholesomeness"? (Serious questions)
Would it be on the right side of conservative "principles" to give the governor the sole right to appoint a private company's BODs?
Would it be on the right side of conservative "principles" to give the governor the sole right to appoint a private company's BODs?
Maybe it's just me but when I look at what's happening with Disney, Florida and DeSantis I see a Florida issue, not a National issue and not a Presidential election issue, unless DeSantis is doing something with Disney on a national level...which he can't. So all this is just about Trump's surrogates and those auditioning for his VP spot attacking DeSantis for doing his job representing the people of Florida...who so far I have not read about them complaining.
when I look at what's happening with Disney, Florida and DeSantis I see a Florida issue, not a National issue and not a Presidential election issue
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.
Wasn't this once a cornerstone "conservative" principle?
What bullcrap! Removing privilege from bad acting companies is not the same as 'deciding corporate winners and losers. In a FAIR system, Disney would not have had the Reedy Creek development AT ALL. What of all the other resorts in FL that never got such deference?
Your angst rings hollow.
No. But when the 'punishment' is simply taking away privileges previously awarded that business, not awarded equally to other businesses, the point is moot.
That privilege was awarded to a family friendly, wholesome company... Which it is no more.
Pretty clear she has no idea exactly what the whole Reedy Creek situation involves.
That's not true. Reedy Creek is not Disney.
On March 28, 2022, DeSantis signed into law the “Parental Rights in Education bill” — called the “Don’t Say Gay” bill by critics. Disney released a statement via Twitter the next day, arguing that the bill “should never have passed and should never have been signed into law.” The company wrote that its “goal” was “for this law to be repealed by the legislature or struck down in the courts,” adding that it would “remain committed to supporting the national and state organizations working to achieve that.”
DeSantis was enraged. “I think they crossed the line,” he warned during a news conference in Tallahassee the next day. In his book, “The Courage to Be Free: Florida’s Blueprint for America’s Revival,” DeSantis describes Disney’s statement as a “declaration of war.” The governor claims that by “promising to work to repeal the bill,” Disney “was pledging a frontal assault on a duly enacted law of the State of Florida.”
DeSantis is wrong. Disney merely expressed a contrary opinion. And expressing that opinion is protected by the First Amendment. The governor’s campaign of retaliation for exercising that right in turn violates that law.
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. That’s exactly what DeSantis did.
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.” DeSantis pays lip service to the “right” that the Walt Disney Co. and “its executives” have “to indulge in woke activism.” But he quickly adds that “Florida did not have to place the company on a pedestal while they do so,” arguing that Disney’s “special arrangement” became fair game.
https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/desantis-disney-first-amendment-rights-unconstitutional-rcna81974
[...]
So what?
Republican presidential candidate Asa Hutchinson responds to DeSantis' row with Disney, says it's 'not the role of government' to punish a business you disagree with
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.
Fascinating how Trumpistas now want to give preferential treatment to certain corporations.
So trampling the First Amendment is okay if it's done with conservative boots?
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.
Violation of First Amendment protections are now "so what"?
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.
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.
Violation of First Amendment protections are now "so what"?
I assure you, I do. And hiding behind "Reedy Creek" is clever, but it isn't going to work.
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.
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.
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
So trampling the First Amendment is okay if it's done with conservative boots?
I'm not questioning the political motivation, I'm questioning the method. Why, as a "conservative" aren't you?
This could well be, but it has nothing to do with the actions against Disney the Governor chose to take.
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.
Speech can make a corporation unworthy of special treatment.
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
Written by Norman Eisen at MSNBC, a democrat. :silly: Keep it coming RIV.
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.
Written by Norman Eisen at MSNBC, a democrat. :silly: Keep it coming RIV.
What would the reaction here be if Biden was doing the same thing to a company that opposed his agenda?
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.
What did he get wrong?
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.
What did he get wrong @cato potatoe ?
Did Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy also get it wrong?
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.
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.
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.
Contract law be damned, right?
Contract law be damned, right?
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.
Always when the contract is designed or operated in bad faith.
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
The 'contract' in question here is one between Disney and Disney. The level of dishonesty needed to adopt such an argument is significantly poignant.
But it wasn't ----- not once in 26 years; until:
Right... Until Disney finally went woke enough to piss off the legislature of FL.
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.
The state's retaliation in response to a corporation's First Amendment rights is a no-no. :nono:
Desantis better pray you're not subpoenaed. 88devil
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.
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.
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?
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.
What bullcrap. Disney owning the members of its oversight board is the issue that needs remedy.
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.
That may be. But it's not what prompted the Governor's and statehouse's actions against Disney. We know this because the governor admitted in his book, during speeches, at press conferences, etc. that the actions taken were in direct response to Disney's vocal, woke opposition to the "Don't Say Gay" law.
This sure appears to be quintessential government retaliation in contradiction to First Amendment rights.
No, not 'it may be'... It IS. And what prompted it don't mean shit to me.
But it does to the law and the Supremes.
The state's retaliation in response to a corporation's First Amendment rights is a no-no. :nono:
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.
This sure appears to be quintessential government retaliation in contradiction to First Amendment rights.
DeSantis is wrong. Disney merely expressed a contrary opinion. And expressing that opinion is protected by the First Amendment. The governor’s campaign of retaliation for exercising that right in turn violates that law.
https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/desantis-disney-first-amendment-rights-unconstitutional-rcna81974