This weekend, I contributed to an article for the New York Post with an exclusive on a move by the new board governing Disney properties to declare the recent transfers of power to the company to be null and void. Below is my column on the legal implications of that move and how Disney may be set for a truly wild ride in the weeks ahead.
Here is the column:
Walt Disney used to say, “The way to get started is to quit talking and begin doing.”
Gov. Ron DeSantis is about to put Disney’s own motto to the test — against Disney.
According to a high-ranking Florida official, the newly created Central Florida Tourism Oversight District is set early this week to call Disney on one of the worst bluffs of all time.
The result could prove the House of Mouse made a costly miscalculation.
For decades, Disney had reason to be the “happiest place on Earth.” Florida supported the company by giving it a unique status in controlling its own governance.
The Reedy Creek Improvement District controlled the Disney property, and Disney effectively controlled its board.
Technically, the board was elected by those living on the Disney property, which amounts to a small number of people living among the “cast members.”
It was a breathtaking deal for the company, which set its own building standards, granted its own construction permits and determined the scope of services, building codes, waste collection and other infrastructure matters.
Outside of the Vatican, such self-governance is little more than a fantasy for companies and organizations.
That favored status came to a crashing halt when Disney went public with a pledge to oppose Florida’s Parental Rights in Education Act.
The legislation prohibited classroom instruction on sexual orientation and gender identity from kindergarten to third grade. It also required “age appropriate” material in other grades.
Then-Disney CEO Bob Chapek originally told workers the company would not take a public position on the legislation to stay out of politics.
Disney employees protested, and Chapek quickly caved, declaring the company would fight to have the law rescinded.
The company has long been “woke” in its policies. But this was a crossing of the Rubicon in plunging into politics.
Disney became the symbol of increasing corporate activism.
While going woke will not necessarily force Disney to go broke, it is facing unprecedented boycotts of its parks and movies, including controversial children’s films with same-sex characters and relationships. On two of those movies, Disney lost more than a quarter of a billion dollars.
Picking fights with people with general tax authority is rarely a winning strategy for a company.
The state responded by removing Disney’s favored status, gutting the Reedy Creek Improvement District and creating the new board with governing authority over Disney properties.
Disney could still have tried to find a compromise. Instead, it did something even more reckless.
In the final days of the Disney-dominated board, the members voted to transfer powers to the company.
Disney is used to being its own self-governing boss.
That history may have warped its judgment in attempting this power grab. It is a move that would make the pirates of the Caribbean blush.
The “declaration of restrictive covenants” gives Disney total control over development and even bans the new board from using Disney’s name or the names of any of its “fanciful characters.”
It added what is called a royal clause, used in England since 1692.
It specified this “Declaration shall continue in effect until 21 years after the death of the last survivor of the descendants of King Charles III, King of England, living as of the date of this declaration.”
Disney may have been too clever by half. The “Hail Mickey” play appears fundamentally flawed.
I have been told the new board intends to treat the declaration as null and void. It appears to have strong grounds to do so.
Indeed, Disney’s legal case seemed no better planned than its political campaign.
First and foremost, under Florida Section 163.3225, a board cannot order such changes without giving a seven-day public notice and other conditions.
You are not allowed a jump scare like Space Mountain — you must give notice on your intended measures.
There is no indication the board did so.
That alone could nullify the declaration. Ordinarily, a board would simply reschedule the vote with proper notice, but the old board is gone.
There are also serious problems with a board using a declaration to nullify a state law and pass a development plan with no actual plan for development.
It is a curious legal claim that this now-defunct board could negate not just current state law but law for the next 30 years.
Instead, the new board will “quit talking and begin doing.” It will proceed with a vengeance.
Since the old board is no more, Disney will have to sue to try to enjoin the new board. For new CEO Bob Iger, this could make Mr. Toad’s Wild Ride look like a walk in the park.
Disney has no good options.
Even if it could sustain this dubious declaration, the state has myriad ways to impose added costs on the corporation.
When you are sitting on billions in a fixed, unmovable 27,000 acres (42 square miles) of real estate assets, declaring war on your host state is remarkably stupid.
Worse yet, this declaration does appear invalid, and I am told the new board is ready to give Disney a rude awakening this week.
Pro-Disney staff will be canned and public hearings planned on the range of new regulations for the Magic Kingdom.
There are a host of areas that will be subjected to inspections, from the elevators to the famed monorail.
There are also salaries for first responders and others, who may have been underpaid by the Mouse.
Likewise, decades of controlling its own environmental compliance will come to an end with the potential for considerable costs and changes.
The “Small World” is going to get a lot smaller with inspectors testing the water, boats and electrical systems.
Shareholders are likely to raise a familiar question over Disney executives’ priorities in pursuing social and political agendas.
This has already cost the company, and those costs are likely to grow in the coming weeks.
Disney will be demanding it alone among companies dictate its own rules as if it were an Indian reservation that comes with its own faux Indians.
Disney is not alone. In recent days, Bud Light and Nike have faced backlashes and boycotts after aligning their brands with transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney.
In the case of Anheuser-Busch, Bud Light’s parent company, the immediate impact was the loss of $6 billion in value.
It joins a long list of corporations embracing political and social causes despite significant opposition from their consumers.
The fight over governance is a no-win situation for Disney, but the corporate leadership didn’t seem to care. That may trigger a long-needed discussion of shareholders’ and consumers’ ability to push back on political or environmental, social, governance (ESG) policies.
Once again, the company seems oblivious to economic consequences of its aggressive postures toward the state.
While this may be popular for executives, it is not popular with a sizable number of consumers, particularly in Florida.
If, as I have been told, the new board proceeds with its plan, Disney will have to make a choice. It can abandon this effort and seek terms with the state.
Or it can move to enjoin the new board. That will again play to the advantage of DeSantis, who has made the struggle with Disney a core part of his legacy.
Litigation would keep Disney in the news in a negative and polarizing way. It would also expose its operations — and relations to this board — to discovery and public scrutiny.
Unlike its opposition to education law, this move lacks any principle, precedent and prospect to succeed.
Even if a court allows a company to effectively grant itself unchallenged authority, even one the size of Disney cannot win in the long run against the third-most-populous state in the union.
With four theme parks, two water parks, 25 hotels and about 80,000 employees, the state has a host of areas where “leveling the playing field” with other companies will cost Disney dearly.
Indeed, DeSantis and the board just might enjoy this. It’s a fight they’ll likely win legally and politically cannot lose.
They will be fighting to force inspections of monorails and elevators, enforce environmental standards, raise salaries of first responders and oppose a company demanding its own laws.
They’ll be seeking to apply the same laws in the same way to Disney as other large corporations.
Disney will have to argue against such a level playing field and demand to be treated as a virtual sovereign over its own “Kingdom.”
That is a fight DeSantis clearly welcomes. As Mary Poppins said, “In every job that must be done, there is an element of fun.” Whatever happens early this week, it is likely to be fun for everyone but Disney.
Jonathan Turley is an attorney and a professor at George Washington University Law School.
One would think reasonable adults might surely and readily agree that age appropriate educational material ought to be a given for young children as they slowly and gradually progress through their elementary education. Then-Disney CEO Bob Chapek appreciated the appropriateness of it when he at first told Disney’s radical fringe employees the company would not take a public position and stay out of politics with respect to such benign and hard to argue with legislation. He knew Disney’s lane to stay in and now Disney itself along with its share owners wish the radical fringe had not been so unwisely appeased.
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fquotefancy.com%2Fmedia%2Fwallpaper%2F3840x2160%2F1784669-Frederick-Douglass-Quote-When-men-sow-the-wind-it-is-rational-to.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=023e1fd000c6d886471534225a9d7e57edab70a264551912a6a8a8054e7300d6&ipo=images
In his news conference just now, DeSantis said that there is a Florida law that allows the legislature to rescind the kind of “development agreement” executed here, and that this is what the legislature will do. That is in addition to the legal position the current Board will take when it meets Wednesday that the actions by the prior Board were not lawful and so are null and void.
Is Delaware next?
“Why Delaware is the sexiest place in America to incorporate a company”
“Nearly 1.5m companies are incorporated in Delaware. How did this tiny state become a mecca for corporate activity? Take a look at any given corporation’s registration docs, and there’s a good shot you’ll see the address 1209 North Orange Street. Spanning less than a city block in Wilmington, Delaware, this nondescript office building is the official incorporation address of 285k+ companies from all over the world. On the surface, there’s no reason that Delaware — home to blue hens and Civil War monuments — should be a corporate paradise. It’s the second smallest state in America, and the 6th least populous, with just 986k residents. Yet, nearly 1.5m businesses from all over the world are incorporated there, including 68% of all Fortune 500 firms.”
– Zachary Crockett, April 10, 2021, The Hustle https://thehustle.co/why-delaware-is-the-sexiest-place-in-america-to-incorporate-a-company/
Fine so far on the merits, but is he positioning himself as a Gavin Newsom using state power to bend private industry to its will? In a sense, he is admitting that his national dream is over. Newsom is a bully. DeSantis is a saint. Wait until our partisan media gets ahold of that bone!
Actually, this private industry has been bent since 1967. Disney opted to go woke, getting themselves bent like a pretzel and Gov. DeSantis is merely straightening them out.
“First and foremost, under Florida Section 163.3225, a board cannot order such changes without giving a seven-day public notice and other conditions. … There is no indication the board did so.”
Is JT willfully ignorant? Or purposefully lying?
Had he bothered to check his claim, he’d have easily found counterevidence like the following:
“In a statement provided to NPR, Disney said the move was “appropriate” and “approved in open, noticed public forums in compliance with Florida’s Government.” As far as power moves go, this one does appear to be above board. A detailed note about the Restrictive Covenant clause was recorded in the Feb. 8 Reedy Creek agenda and meeting minutes. A day later, the agreement was registered with the Orange County Comptroller. All of those documents were, and still are, available online, no public records request needed. Anyone could’ve attended the old board’s meeting on Feb. 8.”
https://www.npr.org/2023/03/30/1167042594/disney-desantis-board-reedy-creek-charles
They also published a notice in the newspaper, copies here: https://twitter.com/Hammbear2024/status/1647986548334292993
Turley is being incompetent. If he just did a little research and verified what he was being told he would have noticed the discrepancy in his argument. It’s too late to take it back for him.
Turley is so lncompetent you show up every day.
There is also a third requirement which hasn’t been mentioned – Board must also offer notice by mail to all affected property owners BEFORE the first public hearing. This requirement is what Disney may have failed to comply with (and failure to comply would make the agreement null and void).
(1) Actually, it appears that the statute requires some specificity (in the public notice) as to the proposed “entering into, amending, or revoking,” of a development agreement, –which is clearly lacking in your cited newspaper “public notice” which merely states that, during its regularly scheduled meeting, “at that time they will consider such business as may properly come before them.”
Since a minimum of two public hearings are statutorily required, was there an agenda topic published?
(2) Moreover, commenter Kevin W also mentions another factor not discussed by you.
(3) Finally, as commenter Daniel notes, Desantis referenced an additional FL statute that may come into play, allowing the state to rescind new agreements (under what criteria I do not know).
Slight addendum: I have now reviewed the “public notices.” While I find them inadequate as to the prior Board’s actual intent and purpose, I see that at the bottom of the notice(s), the public was provided with an opportunity to review the amendments prior to the meeting. So I temper my comment on that fact.
“it appears that the statute requires some specificity (in the public notice) as to the proposed “entering into, amending, or revoking,” of a development agreement, –which is clearly lacking in your cited newspaper “public notice” which merely states that, during its regularly scheduled meeting, “at that time they will consider such business as may properly come before them.””
The link had 4 photos of announcements and I referred to “copies” (plural); you’re ignoring the first 3.
“commenter Kevin W also mentions another factor not discussed by you.”
I don’t know whether that occurred or not. And unless JT had evidence that they didn’t, it would still be wrong to claim “There is no indication the board did so” (emph. added). IF that were the case, the appropriate statement would be that there’s clear evidence of the board doing some of what was required and he doesn’t know whether the last requirement was met.
“Desantis referenced an additional FL statute …”
Which is again irrelevant to my point about TURLEY’s sloppiness.
I’ve only just seen your addendum and see that you’re no longer ignoring the first 3 announcements, so I retract that you’re ignoring them.
The Federalist has an article up today claiming there are three parts to making such a meeting valid: two public hearings, notification in a newspaper, and a mail notices to affected property owners. No one disputes Disney fulfilled the first two requirements, but did they mail notices? They better have the receipts because rumor says they didn’t.
Turley also didn’t pay attention. About who signed the new deal giving control to Disney from the old board before the DeSantis Board took over…the Florida legislature. They APPROVED the new rules when they signed into law the new board. LOL!! The legislature agreed to the new rules set by Disney and the old board. Meaning Florida legislators didn’t do their due diligence and read what they were signing.
Turley’s looking like an idiot and rightly so.
“Disney followed the letter of the law in passing the bill. On February 6, the bill to change the district was publicly posted. Two days later, the bill was discussed during a committee meeting. Then, on February 9, the King Charles Clause was added. The bill was then approved the next day BY THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE.”
https://www.disneyfanatic.com/oped-ron-desantis-needs-to-just-take-the-l-in-his-fight-with-disney-ks1/
There is also a requirement for the Board to offer notice by mail to all affected property owners before the first public hearing. It appears Disney may have failed to comply with this requirement. If so, it would make the agreement null and void.
“Turley’s looking like an idiot and rightly so.”
You might have some credibility if your, and Anon’s, smear campaign against Turley weren’t so obvious.
Jonathan: Boy, you and Ron DeSantis are really piling on Disney–all because it supports LGBTQ+ rights and opposed the governor’s “anti-woke” law. Disney’s right to take a position on social issues would normally come under the heading of the exercise of “free speech”–something you champion almost every day on this blog for conservatives. But when DeSantis censors educators and bans books and now wants to apparently destroy Disney–at least in Florida–you suddenly are AWOL. Seems there is a little hypocrisy at work here.
Fox News has been pushing the campaign against Disney since last year. Tucker Carlson host told his audience about Disney’s policies on LGBTQ+ issues: “They have a sexual agenda for six-year-old children”. Carlson’s bizarre and false rants about Disney were repeated by other Fox hosts. You now dutifully follow by endorsing DeSantis’ revenge campaign against Disney. Your column cites your contribution to the NY Post article–a tabloid owned by Rupert Murdock, your employer.
Some on this blog think you do not provide an echo chamber for stories pushed by Fox/NY Post. Your column is Exhibit A proving the opposite. The Q is whether you actually believe in all the positions you take in your column? Even if the Dominion case is settled out of court it will have proved one thing. All of the Fox hosts lied to their viewers about Trump’s false claims about the 2020 election even when those same hosts knew the opposite was true. So the Q is why you think a conservative university professor is entitled to freely express his views against DEI and LGBTQ+ policies by administrations but when Disney does the same thing it is suddenly not a “free speech” issue? It seems the Dominion case has revealed the duplicity of not only Fox hosts but their contributors.
Turley is relying way too much on those who are telling him things without verifying it.
“I have been told the new board intends to treat the declaration as null and void. It appears to have strong grounds to do so.
Indeed, Disney’s legal case seemed no better planned than its political campaign.
First and foremost, under Florida Section 163.3225, a board cannot order such changes without giving a seven-day public notice and other conditions.”
Disney DID give a seven day public notice. Turley doesn’t know or didn’t make sure that what he was told was verified.
They had multiple public meetings about the issue. All are on public record and readily available to anyone.
https://twitter.com/ASFleischman/status/1647964786817155073
The public notices was filed Feb. 8 the board convened in March. They had plenty of notice and time for public comment. Oops. Turley should fact check what he’s being told.
Turley’s quote was :
First and foremost, under Florida Section 163.3225, a board cannot order such changes without giving a seven-day public notice and other conditions.”
One of the other conditions is Board must offer notice by mail to all affected property owners before the first public hearing. This is the requirement Disney may have failed to comply with. If so, the agreement would be null and void.
Disney preaches ‘equity’ a lot.
Now they should get true Equity and be put in the same legal position as other theme parks in Florida. No special privileges.
Does Disney have a ride called Hubris Crash yet? Seems like management is already riding it.
Young: (Your Hubris Crash creation was funny.)
Well it’s ok to pick fights, especially if you are in for the win. But I’ll use a truism of the entertainment industry and that is, “if you wish to send a message, send a telegram”. Disney picked a fight it never needed to fight. I never saw any report on the number of actual employees that “forced” these actions on the Disney Board. Were they Florida Employees or California Employees. The states are very different and the politics are different. What percent were truly aggrieved because we know that a great majority of people won’t care. I suspect employees are the same way, unless their job is directly at risk. If you want to fall on your sword publicly, I’m ok with that but when you drag your corporation possibly down with you and affect thousands of your employees livelihood, you might wish to check your hubris at the door.
Seems at the start that a personal visit by the CEO of Disney to the Governor of Florida would have been wise. Recon the minefields out there before you hoist your banners, fire your cannons and start marching through. You might reach the other side but what about the cost.
DeSantis is the one who chose to pick a fight with Disney. He got offended by the fact that Disney had the audacity to criticize this law. So he chose to punish Disney for expressing it’s view on the matter. Turley should have been defending Disney from the beginning. It’s a free speech issue, something near and dear to Turley, but here he is completely abandoning it because he too supports punishing Disney for exercising it’s free speech right to criticize the governor. This is where Turley’s hypocrisy shines.
I have a great idea. Why not allow General Motors to declare that they can form a separate governing entity in all of their plant locations. These would be places where General Motors could enact their own regulations involving the working conditions and safety of their employees. What’s good for Disney should be good for General Motors. If this had happened in the first place we might not be required to buckle up today.
Wow, TiT, that’s the stupidest attempt at making an analogy.
It is black letter law that any board can commit future boards to any decision.
In our legislatures, the next iteration of the body can overturn any legislation.
Corporate America is the same, board policies can be overturned at anytime.
Disney and the old board knew this. It was nothing but a PR stunt.
Sorry: CANNOT commit future boards…
The law allows them to do that. The legislature even approved the old board’s rules when it included their amended charter in the law replacing the board. They literally accepted the terms the old board negotiated with Disney before the new board came into power. It means the idiots in the legislature never bothered to read the law before voting on it. Because of that they will not win in court as they willingly accepted the terms according to the law they singed off on.
Oh Turley you are so right.
While there are stories that reported that Disney did have public notice and followed the rules… it will get interesting.
To your point, suppose that Disney wins…
Ok, now you have the endless inspections.
‘Anonymous’ complaints that require investigations. State Revenue Board requiring audits… Toll roads in and out of Disney, Salaries and pensions for the first responders. Mandatory training for park’s security staff. Endless number of potential shutdowns and slowdowns of business.
Are all of Disney’s employees documented? ICE raids?
Elevators, ride safety. Water safety. Food safety… it goes on and on…
And Disney could be forced to shut down while these inspections go on.
Oh and lets not forget the potential taxes. Sure they could impose the same taxes on other amusement parks. But then again, they could appeal and win, while Disney’s appeal is locked up.
Building permits? Fugit about it.
-G
In a word, besieged.
Nope, because the board will have only limited powers it will not be able to enforce a lot of the things they want to enforce.
Seeking to put tolls and all those other things are retaliatory measures, not state necessities. Disney can win in court by pointing out that the state is only doing this to retaliate for it’s criticism of it’s anti-LGBTQ laws. That would be a violation of Disney’s 1st amendment rights.
Turley seemed almost gleeful about this board taking action. I woudn’t dismiss Disney that easily if I were him. Ironically in another column he is entirely supportive and defends a business right to free speech, but on this column he is almost ecstatic about Disney being punished for exercising it’s free speech rights.
Turley goes to great lengths to avoid the obvious problem about the Disney issue and DesSantis. Disney is being punished by government because it was critical of the governor’s anti-gay policies. As usual he disingenuously avoids the fact that the governor is only doing this because Disney criticized him and expressed support of their employees views against the law. DeSantis is on a censorship binge and is showing his “political might” by being an authoritarian and bully towards those who criticize him. It’s a prime example of Republicans not being able to handle criticism without resorting to vengeful or retaliatory action. Action that is expressly prohibited by the constitution when it involves government officials.
Turley seems to be underestimating Disney just as DeSantis did when he thought he had Disney under this thumb. I wouldn’t be surprised if Disney challenged that board in court. Their lawyers are far smarter than DeSantis and his supporters are. Turley may have jumped the gun on this issue.
almost ecstatic about Disney being punished for exercising it’s free speech rights.
You have repeated 100’s of times in these threads that speech carries consequences
Now you bemoan the consequences?
Not that me, or any one hear would expect you adhere to the standards you have advocated for in the past.
Iowan2,
“You have repeated 100’s of times in these threads that speech carries consequences
Now you bemoan the consequences?
Not that me, or any one hear would expect you adhere to the standards you have advocated for in the past.”
What you are not getting is the context in which the consequences occur.
I have said that free speech has consequences when PRIVATE entities are involved because the constitution does NOT protect one from the consequences from the PRIVATE companies or individuals that are offended or criticized. Disney is being punished as a consequence of exercising their free speech by GOVERNMENT which the constitution explicitly protects against. That is retaliation or punishment for expressing criticism of government policies. Things the constitution prohibits government from doing when it says “the right to free speech shall not be infringed”. Now, do you understand the difference or will I have to simplify it more for you?
Your entire comment raises a crucial issue which we have discussed over and over before.
In this instance it is in the arena of government power rather than criminal law, but the issue is fundamentally the same.
Does an alleged bad motive make an otherwise legitimate government action illegitimate ?
With specific respect to Disney, you are absolutely correct – DeSantis and FL CAN NOT use the power of the FL Government to single out Disney for special negative treatment in response to Disney’s free speech.
But that ignores what is actually be0ing done here.
Disney received SPECIAL status, an the government is chosing to revoke that special status.
I would personally argue that Government should not EVER have been allowed to give anyone or any company “special status”
But the courts have wrongly rejected that long ago.
I will be happy to join you in opposing ANY effort by FL or DeSantis to treat Disney differetnly from other businesses as a consequence of their political speech.
But NOT in choices to eliminate “special” treatment that Disney never should have received in the first place.
“Disney received SPECIAL status, an the government is chosing to revoke that special status.”
The special status should be completely irrelevant. The only reason why it’s at the forefront of the matter is because DeSantis and the state legislature are only revoking that agreement AFTER Disney criticized the “Don’t say gay bill”. They chose to punish Disney by revoking the agreement that nobody was against. The governor wanted to make an example of Disney by taking away this special arrangement only because he didn’t like the fact that Disney was critical of the law that affected it’s employees.
The Reedy Creek agreement is being used to deflect from the fact that Desantis and the legislature WANT and ARE punishing Disney for exercising their constitutional right to criticize the government. That is the problem. Turley clearly is ignoring this because he tacitly approves of the punishment by government by portraying this as a “selfish decision” by Disney instead of defending Disney for exercising it’s 1st amendment rights.
Disney got special treatment because it was a big investment in the state by a legislature that granted them the special treatment. Nobody was complaining about it until DeSanits chose to use the agreement as means to punish Disney. Ironically because Disney had governmental control of that district it was able to maintain it with private funding. They had strict rules for roads, maintenance, and holding home values around the area. They were doing what many libertarians fantasize about. The privatization of government and what do republicans do, take it over because they were offended by criticism of a policy. Just how petty does Desantis have to be to “send a message” that he is not to be criticized?
This is about punishing a company and retaliating because it chose to criticize government. That’s it. It has nothing to do with the Reedy Creek agreement.
If the special status is completely irrelevant – then this debate is over.
Disney lost something that YOU think is completely irrelevant.
I would note Government punishes people and companies all the time – that is its job.
That said it is not ever a punishment to take from you something that was never yours to begin with.
You keep ducking that issue.
If I say that because of your a-holery I am not going to give you that $1M I thought about giving you – you have not been “punished”.
You keep saying Disney’s rights were violated – How ? Disney was not denied the right to speak however they please.
They were not denied the right to criticise DeSantis.
Nor has FL deprived Disney of anything that every single other FL business has.
You have a very bizzarre defintion of punishment.
I know this is difficult for you – but when you use words incorrectly – you distort your own thinking.
And you get things wrong.
Different subject but related.
I beleive you are one of the idiots that claimed that Taibbi had somehow been “debunked” by Hassan.
Taibbi posted the response below
“I’d be lying if I said I didn’t spend last week wondering how to undo any damage to the #TwitterFiles caused by my interview with MSNBC’s Mehdi Hasan. Short of jumping in a DeLorean and time-flying back to cancel, few ideas presented themselves. I knew from the start the Twitter project would be a high-wire act, and I don’t get to blame anyone else for slipping.
Sadly, the aftermath of the segment took on a life of its own. I’ll have to weigh in at some point for obvious reasons, but in the meantime: remind me never to upset Lee Fang”
But even more importantly here is Lee Fang’s response, which – aside from exposing Hassan also very accurately shreds Hassan for the same tactics that YOU and the left use all the time.
https://leefang.substack.com/p/mehdi-hasan-plagiarized-pro-spanking
Matt Taibbi was machined gunned by Medhi Hassan. He was not prepared for Hassans do not let anyone get a word in edgewise machine gun vicious and almost entirely erroneous attack.
But outside the Studio Lee Fang was MOre than prepared for Hassan, and in the above article – not merely shreds his criticism of Taibbi, but also his bogus criticism of Lang himself as well as just completely exposing Hassan’s lack of Journalistic integrity over the past two full decades.
It is probable that Hassan is an intelligent person., but he is lazy, has no integrity, and lies if he breaths. His objective is not, and never has been reporting the truth.
It is advancing the interests of Mehdi Hassan, and he will change his spots to curry favor with whatever powerful player serves his interests
I would suggest reading Fang’s expose of Hassan – but probably not while looking in the mirror, you might see yourself and like medusa turn to stone.
“With specific respect to Disney, you are absolutely correct – DeSantis and FL CAN NOT use the power of the FL Government to single out Disney for special negative treatment in response to Disney’s free speech.”
And John, that is EXACTLY what they are doing.
The agreement is what they are using to punish Disney for it’s criticism of DeSantis. They are singling out Disney for retaliation and they are still threatening other measures to punish Disney for it. That is the purpose of the DeSantis appointed board. To dole out punishment.
“And John, that is EXACTLY what they are doing.”
Nope. we have been through this.
FL is not negatively treating Disney.
They are rescinding special treatment.
This is another major logical error you make all the time.
You can not distinguish between negative and positive.
You are not entitled to a privilege you have from someone else.
Absent a binding agreement – it can be revoked at any time for any reason or none at all.
Even with a binding agreement that privilege is only yours by contract for the duration of the contract
AND your compliance with the contract and then only if the privilege is part of the contract.
And by law contracts can not last forever.
All positives are ephemeral – they are non-enduring.
Actual rights conversely are negative.
The purpose of the Board which will ultimately be elected is to govern.
Is Turley happy ?
I do not know.
But I am.
Those of you on the left revel in joy over often phyric political victories.
The rest of us are going to revel as you get your comeuppance.
Turly provided fairly detailed reasoning why Disney is unlikely to win – either in court or otherwise.
Your argument seems to boil down to – Disney has better lawyers.
an unsupported and unproven claim.
Nor inherently a winning one.
Do you think that what is lawful and what is not should be decided based on which side has the better lawyers ?
Regardless, the ROOT of this dispute is that Disney was given the priviledge of being the government in approx 47 sq miles of Florida.
As Turley noted the only US parallel legally is indian tribes status on Reservations.
Disney does not have a legal basis to claim tribal powers.
It is hard to see how they are going to win the argument that they alone of all companies in the US have a right to governmental powers.
“Regardless, the ROOT of this dispute is that Disney was given the priviledge of being the government in approx 47 sq miles of Florida.”
No, the root of the dispute is about the Florida government threatening a privilege nobody was complaining about as a means to punish Disney for criticizing DeSantis and his policy. The Reedy Creek agreement didn’t factor into this dispute until the government chose to repeal it in retaliation. That’s the issue.
Turley ignores the fact that the previous board did file notice and did hold comment period and publicly held a meeting to change the rules before the new board came on. The legislature approved the new board along with the agreement that included the clause that stripped the new board of the majority of its powers. Disney’s case is much stronger than Turley leads us do believe.
“No, the root of the dispute is about the Florida government threatening a privilege”
That is obviously NOT the root.
Again you keep trying to sell all over this nonsense that WHY you do something matters.
It does not. Both god and the law judge WHAT you did, not Why.
You can not make a government or a society work if Why matters.
We do not and will not ever agree on which reasons are good reasons and which are bad ones.
“Turley ignores the fact”
Properly.
You also have the fundimental problem that nearly all govenrment power within a state belongs to the state.
To whatever extent a prior board had any legitimate4 powert – that power was ultimately STATE power.
And the state can take it away or overrule.
I would further note in this specific case – DeStantis did not – and can not act alone. DeSantis is not king.
He went to the legislature – and they passed a law empowering him to act.
Even by YOUR argument – you NOW have to query a couple of hundred lawmakers for their motives.
This is the same issue with the socalled threats by the legislature to the various commissions that reinstated TN house members.
The TN house can perfectly legitimately reduce funds to those commissions.
All local govenrment power within a state is at the pleasure of the state.
The TN House can not act alone, the senate will have to go along as will the governor.
But if they do – and they likely will – there will be consequences.
It is generally unwise to piss off those who are in some form your boss.
“Disney’s case is much stronger than Turley leads us do believe.”
Disney has no case and like Turley I doubt they will make one.
I agree with you that Florida’s reasons for acting are wrong – though not “dead wrong”.
But I wholly support government doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.
And so would you if you were capable of critical thinking.
You constantly make all decisions based on the politics of the moment, you do not have actual principles.
The few things you claim are principles are so obviously fungible as to be meaningless.
John B. Say,
“I would further note in this specific case – DeStantis did not – and can not act alone. DeSantis is not king.
He went to the legislature – and they passed a law empowering him to act.
Even by YOUR argument – you NOW have to query a couple of hundred lawmakers for their motives.”
He is acting as if he were king. They legislature is doing his bidding which is the problem. It’s DeSantis who got all offended because Disney criticized the “dont’ say gay bill”. The legislature obliged his demands to enact a law to PUNISH Disney for criticizing the “don’t say gay bill”.
The Reedy creek agreement is not the only special agreement the legislature has in Florida. There are similar agreements all over Florida that give certain municipalities the same kinds of self governing privileges in smaller areas. Disney has the largest one and they singled out the Reedy Creek agreement for repeal as punishment for Disney’s criticism of the “don’t say gay bill”. That’s the whole problem.
You agree that it is wrong for government to single out a company for punishment for merely criticizing a law or policy. DeSantis and the state legislature are singling out Disney for punishment because they chose to exercise their free speech right to criticize a policy. Nobody had an issue with the Reedy Creek agreement for decades because i was beneficial to all those involved. It wasn’t until DeSantis and his cronys in the legislature got all offended by Disney’s criticism they decided to retaliate by taking first trying to void the agreement and when they realized that would be a big problem because the billion dollar debt obligations were going to be a big problem they changed the punishment to abolishing the previous Reedy Creek board and replacing it with a DeSantis appointed one. The whole thing was about punishing Disney for criticizing a policy. Disney’s legal moves frustrated that attempt to punish and still DeSantis and the legislature pursued punishment by other means.
The theme you seem to keep missing or ignoring is the intent to punish for exercising their free speech rights which YOU agree is not only wrong, but illegal.
“To whatever extent a prior board had any legitimate4 powert – that power was ultimately STATE power.
And the state can take it away or overrule.”
The state AGREED to the new terms set by the old board. Did you know that? In their haste to punish Disney the legislature stupidly voted on the new board and it’s new agreement which included the clauses giving Disney majority control of all the functions of the district. Obviously the legislature and the new board didn’t read the agreement and stupidly agreed to it. It’s the same thing that many people who sign on to twitter or Facebook do. They scroll past the TOS and click on “I AGREE”.
If you don’t believe me then read this,
“Disney managed to gain state approval for its plans in 2022. She retweeted Kevin Connolly, another Twitter user, who shared a legal notice from July 2022 in which Florida authorities described the Disney plan as “in compliance.”
Caraballo added: “Disney outsmarted DeSantis again. The plan they passed to keep control of Disney World was comprehensively reviewed and approved by his own State Land Planning Agency last year.”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/news/disney-outsmarted-desantis-again-over-development-dispute-attorney-says/ar-AA1a03WE?cvid=79bcf71cdd6347c3a0b3c03a6255ccea&ei=69
If the state goes ahead and creates legislation to void the agreement Disney will sue and the state will have to show why it is voiding the agreement. It will be forced to admit that it is doing it solely as retaliation for criticism of a policy. Disney has the advantage here, not Desantis. In court Disney can show that the state is retaliating over speech not because the “special privilege” of the Reedy Creek agreement. its’ a case that the state will lose if it goes that far.
Florida’s reasons for acting are indeed dead wrong. Your only criticism is the special privilege of the Reedy Creek agreement. In and of itself that is fine there can be a fair debate about that. But the only reason the agreement is in dispute is because the state is using it to punish Disney for exercising their free speech rights. Nobody was complaining or had issues with the agreement. It’s literally what libertarians dream of. A privatized government that is far more efficient than the current public one. Isn’t that the biggest libertarian fantasy?
“You constantly make all decisions based on the politics of the moment, you do not have actual principles.”
Everyone does that, you’re no exception.
“I agree with you that Florida’s reasons for acting are wrong – though not “dead wrong”.
But I wholly support government doing the right thing for the wrong reasons”
So you are perfectly fine with government violating rights because you don’t agree with the idea of the Reedy Creek agreement and what it represents. You realize that’s a very authoritarian act, right?
“He is acting as if he were king.”
You can beleive whatever you like.
You can even be right – which you are not.
He STILL is not King.
Does he have SOME influence over the legislature – certainly.
Do you think he could get the FL legislature to vote to make abortion completely legal right to the moment of birth ?
Of Course not. Whether it is DeSantis, or Trump, or Schumer or Biden or McCarthy or …. the Influence of political leaders
can whip the votes on legislation a few votes one way or the other.
DeSantis can not get to the FL legislature to “do his bidding”.
He can move maybe a half dozen on the fence republicans to one side or the other.
That is all.
DeSantis can get what he wants from the legislature – because they too want the same thing.
“It’s DeSantis who got all offended because Disney criticized the “dont’ say gay bill”.”
Bizzare argument – no such bill.
All your argument makes clear is your own deceptfulness and that of your ideology.
The FL bill does not address sexual oreintation. That is a stupid LIE by the left.
The fact that those like you continue to trot out that nonsense proves your own deceptfulness,
as well as the extent to which YOU beleive ordinary people are guilible.
It is not DeSantis trying to pull the wool over peoples eyes – it is OBVIOUSLY you.
The law bars teachers from initiating discussions of sex with students prior to 3rd grade.
Not Gay sex, not Trans, not gender, not fetishes.
If you need stupid labels – the Bill is the “don’t sexualize children” bill
Calling it “don’t say gay” is LYING.
Was DeSantis offended by Disney’s stance – sure. So were many others – including FL republican legislators.
so were ordinary people – as evidenced by the destruction of 50% of shareholder value over the past 18 months.
As evidenced by the failure of Disney’s product.
Is that ALL over Disney’s support for sexualizing young school kids – no. Is the decline all because of Disney’s incorporation of woke values into their product – no.
But that combined with the fact that their recent products are just BAD has resulted in a real serious problem for Disney.
Further it si likely that all of these problems interrelate. That it is woke poison that is making their product unpalatable.
It is probable that Disney would be doing better – if its product was good – regardless of its politics.
“The legislature obliged his demands to enact a law to PUNISH Disney”
Corrected: The legislature shared his wish to enact a law to PUNISH Disney
Which they are free to do so long as they do not infringe on Disney’s actual rights.
““You constantly make all decisions based on the politics of the moment, you do not have actual principles.”
Everyone does that, you’re no exception.”
False and incredibly stupid.
My positions and arguments on every single issue involving government are trivially predictable based on a few principles, facts and logic.
While YOU are abysmal at doing so – that is because you have no principles, are incapable of logic and blind to facts.
But ignoring me, it is injcredibly well documented that one of the strongest predictors of success (and happiness) is the abilit of people to get out of the moment
to make decisions based on actual principles, as well as being able to use facts and logic to accurately grasp the long term implications of choices and choose the best long term outcome rather than short term gratification.
You do not have to beleive i do that – buy your claim that EVERYONE is as devoid of principles, logic, and fixated on instant gratification as you are is obviously wrong.
“So you are perfectly fine with government violating rights”
No, I am NEVER OK with govenrment violating rights.
I am perfectly OK with government undoing bad legislation for bad reasons.
Disney did not lose a single right.
“because you don’t agree with the idea of the Reedy Creek agreement and what it represents.”
I do not support government ever giving special privileges to anyone.
“You realize that’s a very authoritarian act, right?”
Wrong – it is actually anti-authoritiarian.
YOU are the one supporting arbitrary choices – special privileges for Disney – apparently in perpetuity.
Regardless, we have had this debate over and over before.
There is nothing unconstitutional about the legislation – either the FL legislation baring the initiation of discussions on sex with children before 4th grade,
or the legislation ending special privileges for some corporations.
Something that is otherwise legal does not become a crime – because you do not like the reasons it may have been done.
Something that is constitutional does not become unconstitutional because you do not like the reasons it may have been done.
Whether you like it or not – morality, ethics, legality, constitutionality,. criminality have noting to do with motives or intentions.
But are exclusively determined by the ACTS.
As I have noted repeatedly – even the christian god who purportedly knows what is in our hearts and souls – something that YOU are entirely unable to do,
Still judges us based on our ACTS.
I would separately note that our ACTS – rather than your feelings about what is in someone else’s mind, are the best window into our hearts and soul.
I judge myself, YOU and others by What they have DONE, not what I believe their intentions are.
“Good intentions are only lies the weak tell themselves.”
“Good intentions are simply not enough. Our character is defined and our lives are determined not by what we want, say or think, but by what we do.”
“People with good intentions but limited understanding are more dangerous than people with total ill will.”
— Martin Luther King Jr.
“Half of the results of a good intentions are evil; half the results of an evil intention are good.”
— Mark Twain
The road to hell is paved with good intentions
Beware of false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.
By their fruit you will recognize them. Are grapes gathered from thorn bushes, or figs from thistles?
Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.
A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.
Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
So then, by their fruit you will recognize them.
Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of My Father in heaven.
Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’
Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you workers of lawlessness!’
Your arguments are all ENTIRELY about your beleif regarding the intentions of others.
In Svelaz world good and evil are determined solely by YOUR guesses as to the intentions of others.
You are absolutely abysmal at perceiving the facts – why would anyone think you are better at reading peoples minds ?
“No, the root of the dispute is about the Florida government threatening a privilege nobody was complaining about “
False. Therefore, everything that follows can be presumed false.
S. Meyer, who was complaining about the Reedy Creek agreement before DeSantis and Disney got into it?
List the people who were complaining and demanding it be voided BEFORE this dispute. Prove me wrong.
After writing that, no one objected, you were corrected now, you wish to be corrected again, and you want proof. You are almost always wrong, so search for the proof yourself. What I said is common knowledge. If you weren’t so dumb, you would realize that competing companies are not happy with the advantages Disney gets.
Do you need a little more brain power for you to make any sense on this block.
Every liberal who has been screaming about corporations being allowed to write their own rules and unfair tax breaks
“It is hard to see how they are going to win the argument that they alone of all companies in the US have a right to governmental powers.”
They can argue that the original agreement was repealed illegally as retaliation for exercising their free speech rights. Florida didn’t have a reason to repeal it for decades until the Republican governor didn’t like Disney criticizing him for supporting a policy that targeted their employees for who they are.
It’s clear that the intent behind the repeal was to punish Disney for criticizing the governor. Prior to the criticism nobody complained or had issues with the Reedy creek agreement.
Your opposition to the agreement would be fine if it were a stand-alone issue. Unfortunately it’s directly related to the governor’s intent to use it as a means to punish Disney. We both agree that is dead wrong.
“They can argue that the original agreement was repealed illegally as retaliation for exercising their free speech rights.”
There is no such claim at law.
You may not have contracts in perpetuity – so there almost certainly is not contractually binding agreement on Florida that remains.
Government may not infringe on actual rights because of your excercise of free speech.
But It can infringe on things that are NOT rights. Disney has no right to special treatment.
“Florida didn’t have a reason to repeal it for decades”
They do not need a reason.
“until the Republican governor didn’t like Disney criticizing him for supporting a policy that targeted their employees for who they are.”
That is actually inaccurate as Disney was not challenging laws that applied to THEIR employees.
Disney is not a school.
“It’s clear that the intent behind the repeal was to punish Disney”
Government punishes people all the time.
“for criticizing the governor.”
Technically for criticising the law.
Regardless, that is NOT a valid legal standard – if it were – everyone would criticise the government and governor as that would make it impossible for government to stop any benefit.
The FACT is that your “intent based” concept of the law is stupid, deeply falwed and can not possibly work;.
You MIGHT get a few dimwitted judges to buy it, but there is no chance such idiocy will survive the supreme court – should it get there.
This is one of the mosre massive errors those on the left constantly make.
One that you are making with Fox/DVS – Do you really think that the news can continue to exist if nothing can be reported that is not first proven to be true ?
This is not about Fox – it is about the fact that YOUR legal theory to “get Fox” would result in the death of the news if applied as you claim it does.
Just as your legal theory regarding Disney V FL would make it impossible for government to ever terminate ANY benefit to anyone ever.
All they would have to do is criticise govenrment and you could not terminate their benefit.
I would suggest listening to Derschowitz on the Bragg nonsense, because it applies broadly.
As a rule – even where it is Possible that ONE reason for an act is barred, where there are multiple possible reasons – and in the real world there are ALWAYS multiple reasons for every decision. as long as ONE possible reason for an action is legal – the act is legal.
The legal meaning of “intent” is NOT what you claim.
Motive – which is what you confuse with intent, is NOT a required element of any crime. It is something that the police, prosecutors and juries look for – because we do not like to beleive people commit crimes for no reason. But it does happen and they are still crimes.
Criminal intent – mens rea, is the knowledge that what you are doing is Wrong. Mens rea is an actual element of nearly every crime.
“Prior to the criticism nobody complained or had issues with the Reedy creek agreement.”
So, Government contracts get canceled all the time.
The only question in this case is whether the State of FL could legally terminate the agreement.
It is not legal to have a contract in perpituity and it is therefor highly likely that the Contract with Disney was no longer binding.
“Your opposition to the agreement would be fine if it were a stand-alone issue.”
Then the issue is DOA, and you have lost.
If you rent an apartment from me, and you are behind on your rent – but I let you slide.
and you then decide to piss all over me in public – you can expect to be evicted.
And the courts will pay no attention to your claim that it was in retaliation for pissing over me.
All you need is One legal reason to terminate a contract.
Again listen to Derschowitz on the Bragg prosecution – one of the many reasons it will fail is because Trump has dozens of legal reasons for his actions.
Worse still the reason Bragg claims is illegal – isn’t and isnt state law, and does not match the facts.
The law is this way for reasons that have nothing to do with DeSantis and Trump.
Because you can not make society work, you can not make law work as you wish.
It is an incredibly stupid idea to have courts attempt to judge the specific intentions of people.
We can not read minds.
Opening up the law to makign specific intentions legal and others illegal,
is the highway to hell.
It will inevitably lead to exactly what we are seeing – the politicization of the law.
And tomorrow – YOU could be the target.
“Unfortunately it’s directly related to the governor’s intent to use it as a means to punish Disney.”
“We both agree that is dead wrong.”
No, we agree that it is wrong – dead wrong is something else.
More importantly it is NOT illegal.
Separate from all the above arguments – there is a positivist argument in favor of this.
I want – and YOU should want Government to do the RIGHT thing – even if it does so for “wrong reasons”.
I do not want any company to have the special priviledges Disney has.
I would not care if these priviledges were to the NRA, or Colt, or some other enterprise that I favor.
I do not want Louisiana to give special priviledges to Boeing to build plants there.
Unfortantely we either need a constitutional amendment, federal law or a correct reading of the constitution to reach that.
I want states competing with each other based on tax rates and the other conditions they can offer businesses.
But those conditions must be for all people and all businesses.
If DeSantis is doing the right thing for the wrong reasons – I am fine with that.
I am fine with Trump doing the right thing for the worng reasons.
I am fine with Biden doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.
I highly doubt Biden got out of Afghanistan for the right reasons.
But I am happy that he did.
Biden is correct that Trump hamstrung him into leaving.
But those constraints were political – not actually binding, and therefore Biden can not blame Trump for being forced into doing the right thing.
But Biden botched the withdraw on his own. Trying to cast the blame elsewhere is immoral.
But I will credit Biden for leaving – even if for the wrong reasons.
There is no requirement in law that you do anything only for the right reasons.
There can not be.
Again ACTS are right or wrong – regardless of your reasons for them.
Even god in the final judgement does not look into your soul for your motives.
You are judged on WHAT you have done – not why.
Matthew 25:31-46
“Government may not infringe on actual rights because of your excercise of free speech.
But It can infringe on things that are NOT rights. Disney has no right to special treatment.”
NO, the issue is not the special treatment they got with the Reedy Creek agreement. The government is infringing on Disney’s free speech rights by using the voiding of the agreement as RETALIATION. That is an unconstitutional infringement on their rights. This is what you are not getting. Florida is RETALIATING for Disney’s criticism of the “don’t say gay” bill with threatening to void an agreement that nobody had an issue with prior to the criticism. Disney criticized DeSantis first. DeSantis didn’t like that so it chose to RETALiATE against Disney by demanding the legislature void the Reedy Creek agreement. The RETALIATION is the infringement on Disney’s free speech rights. The RETALIATION is the punishment for speaking out against the governor’s policies. That is unconstitutional. You already agree that is true, but you keep arguing that the Reedy Creek agreement, which nobody complained about, is the issue. NO. It’s the government’s RETALIATION in response to Disney’s critical opposition to the “don’t say gay” bill. The illegal retaliation is the attempt to repeal the Reedy Creek agreement which ended up being a problem and then the forceful removal of the old board with a Desantis appointed one. The intent hasn’t changed. They are still wanting to punish Disney for criticizing a law which you agree is dead wrong.
“Florida didn’t have a reason to repeal it for decades”
They do not need a reason.”
They do need a reason. They did have a reason. The agreement stipulated that if the agreement was voided all outstanding debts will be incurred by the district’s residents and local governments. There was over a billion dollars in debt obligations that Disney accrued in the district. The state had ample reason NOT to void the agreement since Disney was responsible for those debt obligations and not the residents. DeSantis and the Florida legislature found out about that problem when they were seeking to void the agreement. The state would have had to absorb over a billion dollars in debt. Somehow I don’t think they wanted that. So they did the next best thing. Take over the board and leave the agreement in place. But…Disney cleverly changed the rules before I the new board was appointed and the state APPROVED the new rules unknowingly when it voted to appoint the new board and approve of the agreement that came with it. Oops. They agreed to Disney’s new rules that they negotiated PUBLICLY with the old board.
“until the Republican governor didn’t like Disney criticizing him for supporting a policy that targeted their employees for who they are.”
That is actually inaccurate as Disney was not challenging laws that applied to THEIR employees.
Disney is not a school.”
Disney was criticizing the law. Not challenging it. I never said they were challenging the law. Disney was critical of the law which would affect their employees. Disney criticized the law because they supported their employees. Disney was exercising their free speech rights.
“It’s clear that the intent behind the repeal was to punish Disney”
Government punishes people all the time.”
Not for criticizing the government. That is an unconstitutional violation of the 1st amendment. The intention behind the repeal of the Reedy Creek agreement is retaliation for Disney criticizing DeSantis.
“Regardless, that is NOT a valid legal standard – if it were – everyone would criticise the government and governor as that would make it impossible for government to stop any benefit.”
It’s an unconstitutional violation for government to punish or retaliate because it is being criticized for something. You keep making the flawed argument that this is more about the special privileges. You are avoiding the obvious because you agree with the government punishing Disney for exercising their free speech rights. You WANT Disney punished, disciplined for the transgression of criticizing a law.
“Unfortunately it’s directly related to the governor’s intent to use it as a means to punish Disney.”
“We both agree that is dead wrong.”
No, we agree that it is wrong – dead wrong is something else.
More importantly it is NOT illegal.”
It IS illegal. It’s literally unconstitutional. The constitution prohibits government from engaging in retaliatory action against critics. It’s what protection that the 1st amendment gives everyone. It’s dead wrong. You want to make an exception because you want Disney punished for it’s position. That is authoritarian.
“I want – and YOU should want Government to do the RIGHT thing – even if it does so for “wrong reasons”.
Then you would be for government censorship of misinformation. They would be doing the right thing even if it’s for the “wrong reasons”. You seem to agree to it and want it.
The rest of your post involves regurgitated BS grievances that have nothing to do with the Disney dispute.
You already agree that what DeSantis and the state legislature is doing is wrong. But you WANT them to do it because personally you don’t agree with the special privilege Disney has with the Reedy Creek agreement. That’s certainly your personal opinion, but that doesn’t change the fact that the governor and the state legislature are deliberately violating Disney’s free speech rights because they voiced criticisms of their anti-LGBTQ laws.
Disney has been one step ahead of the governor and the legislature because they know what they are doing. Legally Disney has a much stronger case. If this goes to court the state will lose.
“NO, the issue is not the special treatment they got with the Reedy Creek agreement. The government is infringing on Disney’s free speech rights by using the voiding of the agreement as RETALIATION.”
Repeating the same stupid argument does not change its stupidity.
I can not infringe on ANY of your actual rights by taking from you something that was never yours by right.
If FL had allowed Disney to dump toxic chemicals into the everglades, and revoked that permission after Disney spoke out about FL law.
Would that means that FL would be barred from stopping Disney from dumping toxic chemicals.
AGAIN your argument – the argument underlying nearly EVERYTHING you argue,
That YOUR guess as to others intentions alters the legality, morality, constitutionality of an act is BOGUS.
Your beleif that in your good intentions – does not alter the fact that the Fruit of your actions is poisnonous.
It is bad trees that bear bad fruit, and your fruit is evil.
That should be evident from the number of lies you must tell yourself and others.
Disney is as free to speak today as they were before. Nothing has been taken from them that was theirs.
Conversley YOU support ACTUAL violations of peoples free speech rights.
You support silencing those whose views you do not like.
I would prefer that FL had never given Disney special priviledges in the first place.
But you do not even recognize that as Wrong.
But given that they have done so, I am glad they have stopped – regardless of the reason.
It is not and can never be an infrngement on someone’s rights to stop doing something wrong.
John, you don’t get it.
“I can not infringe on ANY of your actual rights by taking from you something that was never yours by right.”
It’s the RETALIATION of the government that is the issue. You already admitted this was wrong. That single point is all that is relevant. The retaliation for Disney criticizing DeSantis. Repeating this simple point is necessary because you keep missing it. The whole issue is the act of RETALIATION and PUNISHING Disney by seeking to repeal the Reedy Creek agreement. They are telling Disney, “shut up, or we will take away this special privilege” YOU AGREE that is WRONG. That is precisely what the problem is. Do you understand now, or do I have to simplify it further?
“John, you don’t get it.”
I get it completely.
You don’t.
“It’s the RETALIATION”
So you think a different word will fix your problem ?
It still does not constitute an infringement on Disney’s rights.
That is the only legal and constitutional issue.
“You already admitted this was wrong.”
Jay walking is wrong.
Every single post you have ever made is wrong.
Pretty much all democratic legislation and most republican legislation is wrong.
Disney jumping into politics was wrong.
“That single point is all that is relevant.”
Nope.
“Repeating this simple point is necessary because you keep missing it. ”
Not missing anything – changing the words does not change the FACT that FL’s response was legal and constitutional.
You continue to claim that YOUR alleged mind reading motives – even if correct, make a legal act into an illegal act.
You do not like what FL did – move to FL and vote Democrat.
I do not like the fact that YOU, the Left, Democrats and Disney LIE about the Bill and about FL and DeSantis
Just because you do not like a law – does not make it anti-LGBTQ.
“The whole issue is the act of RETALIATION and PUNISHING Disney by seeking to repeal the Reedy Creek agreement.”
The fact that you THINK that is the issue is damning.
Once you decide the law is about your GUESS as to the intentions of others – you can make anyone into a criminal.
And you have lost the rule of law.
You constantly rant about authoritarianism – but you are the epitome of authoritarianism.
Authoritarianism is where people exactly like you decide who is good and who is evil based on your feelings, your mind reading your beliefs.
rather than the facts.
That is the reason that both religion and law judge ACTS – the rule of LAW not men. You want the rule of men. Preferably those like you.
I told you that we judge ACTS not guesses at other peoples intentions, Not even actual knowledge of other peoples intentions – as if that is even possible to come by. We do that because ACTS – Facts are something that we can have HOPE are knowable. Because the odds of error are smaller when we stick to acts.
We do that because ultimately doing the right thing for the wrong reasons – is NOT evil. But doing the wrong thing for the right reasons is.
And once again you show yourself to be evil.
“Do you understand now”
There is never an instant that I did not understand exactly what you were saying.
Desantis is doing the right thing. Maybe for good reasons, maybe for bad. But still the right thing. Whatever the reasons – doing the actually right thing especially when that is conforming to the real principles of government individual liberty. limited government and the constitution is never wrong – regardless of the reasons.
While doing the WRONG thing – even for good reasons – is always wrong.
The latter – What YOU want, is “the ends justifies the means” – that is authoritarian,
It is also just about the most dangerous thing we can have.
Corruption in government is far less dangerous than those who beleive their good intentions justify acting outside the law
The worst horrors in the world are brought about by those with good intentions.
I would note – DeSantis and republicans intentions are quite good. They seek to prevent you from deliberately or accidentally perving children.
And they are accomplishing that lawfully.
I also find it odd that those of you on the left are praising Disney.
The sexualization of Children is an issue Disney should stay 10,000 miles away.
Child actors working for Disney were more likely to get Perved than alter boys for Father Geoghan
It is wrong to silence anyone.
But the sexualization of children is NOT an issue Disney has the moral authority to speak on
“Legally Disney has a much stronger case. ”
Legally Disney has no case.
It is unlikely this will go to court – because disney has no case.
“Your argument seems to boil down to – Disney has better lawyers.
an unsupported and unproven claim.”
John, I wonder if the lawyers running the case were from California rather than Florida. They messed up on the laws and the mood of the people.
Lawyers sometimes make a difference in close cases.
They do not make a difference when the answers are clear.
I would further note that one of the big problems with the left – which I have repeated ad nauseum is that what they want – DOES NOT WORK.
If the left gets everything they want. If they control the government and the courts and the law becomes whatever some left wing judge says at the moment.
If we criminalize politics.
The consequence will be a decline in standard of living. even higher levels of anxiety and depression decline in productivity. rising institutional failure.
And the more of what it wants that the left gets – the worse the failure will be.
“They do not make a difference when the answers are clear.”
That is why I am suspicious that the framing of the legal work was run California style. Things were clear, so Disney should have dealt differently.
[quote]Even if it could sustain this dubious declaration, the state has myriad ways to impose added costs on the corporation.[/quote]
Perhaps the state could provide free roadways to enter Disney’s “Happiest Place on Earth” and a modest toll on the roadways out of the Happiest Place on Earth.”
If I were a gambling man, I’d short Disney. Any company that is in family entertainment should avoid politics like the plague. Now Disney is trapped between two implacable sides.
And for what? For virtue signaling on behalf of goofy politics.
The stockholders should sue management.
I never realized Disneyworld was not subject to inspections. That seems absurd. I trust no company to police itself.
That seems absurd. I trust no company to police itself.
They live or die on the perceived value and safety of attending the park. Any neglect of service and inspections, come at a huge cost of reduced attendance. I would bet on Disney inspectors being way more competent than a Govt inspector that got hired through connections with his brother in law, and is working mostly for the fantastic health plan, and exorbitant retirement plan.
Isn’t that the republican free market mantra. Businesses are best at regulating themselves. Look at what happened with banks and the housing market in 2007, the SVB collapse. Just to name a few.
Huh?. Financial institutions deal with a myriad of complex government regulations.
There will be no one defending Disney on this blog today that will be doing so based on the law. Hell, for that matter, common sense. It will be all political and they’ll make themselves look like the pedophiles at the UN.
With respect to the enforcement of criminal law, any prescribed minimum age of consent to sex must be applied in a non-discriminatory manner. Enforcement may not be linked to the sex/gender of participants or age of consent to marriage. Moreover, sexual conduct involving persons below the domestically prescribed minimum age of consent to sex may be consensual, in fact, if not in law. In this context, the enforcement of criminal law should reflect the rights and capacity of persons under 18 years of age to make decisions about engaging in consensual sexual conduct and their right to be heard in matters concerning them.
https://www.liveaction.org/news/un-report-calls-sexual-activity-decriminalized/
Along with what you’re adding just more pieces of the Deep States 5th generation warfare, their diversionary actions & narratives you mentioned.
Notice little to no attn., to last years fed govt’s action to allow “Nano tech” (mRNA crap) into our US Food Supply!
Notice the govt/old media hiding the facts the US has nearly lost it’s Illegal War/Bio-Chem Labs in Ukraine attacking Russia.
Okla Nat Guard troops moved/ing to Africa & now I hear the US/Biden’s Handlers/Dim+Repub NeoCons have started yet another war, Coup in Sudan.
China is setting up to join WW3 against the US right now or soon.
Biden’s Crew moves to further Wreck the US Citizens attempting to block Gas/Diesel ICE vehicles from us in as little as 7 years & they know Damn Well there is not enough materials with current tech to switch all of us over to the WEF/UN/Deep State’s EV Control Grid. Just imagine how many days/weeks it’d take to drive coast to coast with all the charging time it takes for a EV. That’s why all of those expensive Bike Lanes that were put in everywhere. No cars/trucks for citizens just Bikes. Thanks UN/WEF/Deep State’s Great Reset!
Below info found on The Liberty Daily site:
https://freebeacon.com/democrats/how-walmart-pushed-arkansas-public-schools-to-go-woke/
https://www.foxnews.com/media/gates-funded-ngo-claims-children-born-sexual-10-year-olds-should-learn-about-commercial-sex-work
Another very thought provoking column, thank you Professor Turley.
If you attack the King, you better kill him! Disney allowed woke employees to set company policy and to attack the governor of the state in which they operate. Gender lunacy plays well with leftist elite, politicians and their corporate media propaganda arm, but no so much with others. Disney would do well to negotiate with the state.
Well, there is a reason why they pulled Iger out of retirement, to fix Chapek mistakes.
How well he does, or does not do, only time will tell.
Another tell, how well Disney’s Peter Pan and Little Mermaid does at the box office.
Disney’s fundimental problem is not with DeSantus or the state of FL.
It is with its customers.
We are seeing this play out all over – young employees pushing woke agenda’s in fortune 500 companies and alienating consumers.
Waaaaaa!
Not much of an argument.
I am not sure how you can take issue with the fact that the Disney customers and the stock markets are punishing woke businesses for failure to place their customers above the ideology of their employees.
John B. Say, Disney is being criticized by a small number of conservative customers who are offended by the idea that Disney can choose to cater to another set of customers. Disney’s brand is reliant on the creativity and innovation of their employees and many of their employees are members of the LGBTQ community. Disney is being punished because it chose to exercise it’s free speech rights and was critical of the governor’s anti-LGBTQ policies.
Turley is ignoring the fact that Disney is being punished by government because it criticized it. That is a direct violation of their 1st amendment rights. DeSantis and the state legislature are retaliating because they got criticized by Disney. Shareholders, the majority of them are supportive of Disney’s position which is why you don’t see a huge change in their stock prices from the average. Turley likes to make things seem they are more serious than they are regarding the opposition to Disney’s “woke” views.
Budweiser being boycotted by conservatives lasted less than three days before they realized they were critical of their biggest donor. What I found hilarious is the various YouTube and tik tok videos of offended conservatives shooting, dumping, and mocking bud light beer. All of them BOUGHT the beer to ‘demonstrate’ how much they are boycotting it. LOL!! they had to have bought the beer in order to use it to show they didn’t approve of the marketing. I don’t think that’s how a boycott works.
You might have missed my point. Disney chose a battle to placate a segment of their employees – as they did in their last two big money losing animated movies – something they have every right to do. Their mistakes, in my view, were getting directly involved in state politics with grossly misleading messaging, and doing it in a state where the governor doesn’t play games. You may or may not know that the prior Disney CEO called governor DeSantis before going public, and essentially said they’re making me do it. He’s gone now, and I believe that other Disney stakeholders may follow him. Of course, I have no special insight into Disney stakeholders, but then I’m not their CEO.
It is self evident that Disney Shareholders bailed – There market value is barely half what it was.
That does not happen unless lots of shareholders SELL
Whether they Sold because Disney was losing money.
or because they felt the managemrnt was going to lose even more money
or they just did not want to be associated with Disney any more.
Regardless – THEY BAILED ON DISNEY.
As to Svelaz’s nonsense that this is meaningless – try to get a loan if your net worth drops by Half in 18 months.
The Stock price of a publicly traded company IS that companies value – its “market capitalization”.
That Banks and other lenders look at when deciding whether to approve loans.
And all businesses need to borrow money all the time.
While Disney is not going bankrupt,
It may take decades for Disney to recover.
“John B. Say, Disney is being criticized by a small number of conservative customers who are offended by the idea that Disney can choose to cater to another set of customers. Disney’s brand is reliant on the creativity and innovation of their employees and many of their employees are members of the LGBTQ community. ”
Your view and while atleast partly correct – it is also irrelevant.
I have no problkem with Disney making whatever choices it wants – but those choices have had consequences with its customers and with its shareholders.
And whether you like it or not corporations are owned by shareholders and the duty of management is to protect and increase shareholder value.
Everything else you say if true is in service to increasing shareholder value.
Disney must make customers happy – because that is the way to make shareholders happy.
Creative employees are important too. But if those creative employees are incapable of creating what consumers want – then those creative employees have failed, and disney has failed.
Disney is not a sinecure for creative left wing nuts. No one cares about the politics of Disney’s employees – so long as their work makes money.
It has not. Those on the right can blame that on their politics. You can blame it on whatever you want. Regardless, it is FAILURE and failure has consequences – Disney has laid off lots of people. Its market capitalization has dropped precipitously – and that will absolutely make it harder for Disney to be as productive in the future as in the past. Nor is it clear how long lasting the damage to Disney’s brand is.
“Disney is being punished ”
We have been through this before.
You are like a toddler who can not distinguish between an actual punishment, and failure to reward bad conduct.
Disney’s special status was an improper reward.
It has lost that. That is not punishment,
Disney remains free to speak as it wishes.
“Disney was critical of the governor’s anti-LGBTQ policies.”
I have let this stupidity slide for too long.
The above statement is FALSE.
In what world are anti-pedophile policies anti-LGBTQ ?
I know of plenty of people far to the right of DeSantis who will call you an idiot for beleiving that you are a woman when you are a man – THAT is not anti-LGBTQ.
It is just reality.
Most conservatives and libertarians are perfectly content to leave the LGBTQ community alone – so long is it does not use FORCE to impose its will and values on others.
Some think all of that is wrong, sinful and at odds with science and reality. Most really do not give a schiff what you do as consenting adults in private, and some even in public among other adults.
But most of the country does not want all this left wing garbage indoctrination of kids.
No it is NOT anti-LGBTQ to preclude you from perving kids. OR if the direct threat is not you – from creating the oportunity for pedophiles to perve kids.
Regardless, They are NOT your kids. They are NOT yours to do as you wish against the will of their parents.
Telling idiots like you to Leave OUR kids the F#$K alone – is NOYT anti-LGBTQ
Paraphrasing Winston Chuirchill, Parents are the worst people to raise kids – except all other choices.
Teachers job is to Teach what Parents want their kids to learn – NOT to indoctrinate them. And certainly not to open the floodgates for Pedophiles to abuse them.
The Budweiser Boycott is ongoing. AHB has lost more in market Cap in the past week than the entire political cost of the 2020 election.
And the carnage would have been much worse – but for the fact that most of those Boycotting AHB are not familiar with the gazzilions of other brands AHB has and have often switched from Bud Light to some other AHB brand they did not realize was AHB.
AHB has had to rush out damage control, hastily bringing out the Clysdales to try to placate consumers they have pissed off.
Personally I do not give a schiff who AHB features on its beer cans.
I do not drink beer, and I do not personally care whether companies pay Trans spokespersons or Trans influencers.
I personally find mulvany repugnant. I find the few Women like that repugnant. I do not give a schiff about his gender.
But if there are others out their that feel differently – that is their business, and I do not care.
But I am not so stupid as to beleive that Putting Mulvany on cans of Bud Light is nto going to blow up in AHB’s face.
As to your claims regarding politics – I highly doubt those boycotting Bud Light care.
Regardless. Coors is also a big republican donor.
As to your claim – accoring to Opne Secrets AHB’s politics Barelyfavors republicans – contributing almost equally to Republicans and democrats
In 2020 AHB gave more to democrats.
Finally AHB’s Republican contributions in 2020 were about 150K
That is about 0.00025% of their recent losses.
Regardless, a message has been sent. Do not piss on your customers.
“AHB has had to rush out damage control, hastily bringing out the Clysdales to try to placate consumers they have pissed off.”
~+~
A-B could break out a Clydesdale with Lady Godiva riding astride—a real woman this time–Perhaps to cleanse the palate so to speak.
“Disney is being punished by government because it criticized it.”
That is true if we understand the comment ‘Disney is being RIGHTFULLY punished’, which should have happened long ago.
We can say the same about Svelaz’s punishment for stupidity. He is considered the fool on Turley’s blog.
DeSantis rightfully punished Disney, and Disney is paying the price. Disney is not taking Florida to court. Do you know why? Florida did nothing wrong. Disney maintained its free speech rights, and Florida maintains its rights under the laws of Florida.
The treatment you and Disney get is the same. You and Disney can say what you wish, but Disney pays for its stupidity in the stock market while you pay for yours by appearing like a fool on Turley’s blog.
I’d say both of you get what you deserve.
Svelaz is a fool.
Put it is CRITICAL to distinguish between the loss of a privieldge and the loss of a right.
If Government or ANY of us, may not do what we are otherwise entitled to, because of claims of “bad motives”.
It will always be possible to handcuff action with by claims regarding intent.
Can WOKE companies generate the same or greater revenue from their new progressive customers, as they’re losing from the conservative or moderate one’s who won’t do business with them anymore? (Like me?)
Companies can profit in Niche markets including Woke or catering to conservatives.
But mass market companies need to be very careful not to alienate part of their market in favor of other parts.
AHB probably could have done Fine had they produced a new beer targets at the Woke community.
But they took their flagship product and alienated a significant portion of their core consumer base.
This is why we should leave the market alone – government should stay out of it.
Let companies decide what messages they wish to support, and let consumers decide which companies they will patronize.
There are myriads of businesses that do well catering to niche groups such as preppers, or 2A folks, or the woke or …
There are companies that do well catering to the special needs of the Transgendered.
And that is fine.
If master Cake does not wish to make gay wedding cakes – leave them alone – or boycott them, but do not try to force them with government.
Someone else will profit making cakes for gay weddings.
Go to the breakfast cearal aisle in your grocery story – there is something there for everyone.
If you want fair trade, all natural, gluten free, organic, Kashi then you can find it. Just as you can find many choices of basic cornflakes.
Hilarious!