Disney’s Latest Dilemma: Free Speech In the Happiest Place on Earth

Below is my column in Fox.com on free speech controversies brewing in the “House of Mouse” as both the company and its talent face public backlash over public statements. Free speech in the corporate setting presents unique challenges and conditions that are vividly demonstrated by the tough month the company is experiencing.

Here is the column:

Walt Disney once remarked, “You reach a point where you don’t work for money.” For shareholders of Disney, the most common complaint in recent years is that the entire corporation appears to have reached that point in pushing woke movies that have bombed with consumers and a political fight with Florida that has already cost the corporation dearly.

At the heart of two recent controversies are free speech disputes. The company’s new Snow White, actress Rachel Zegler, is publicly defending her right to trash the franchise’s original storyline and characters. In the meantime, the company is objecting that it is being punished for its own free speech in opposing Florida’s popular parental rights law.

Recently, Disney dropped all of its federal claims against the state of Florida over the company’s public opposition to the Parental Rights in Education Act. The only exception is its free speech claim that Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has retaliated against the House of Mouse for speaking as a company against the law. (It has state litigation that is continuing on other claims.)

At the same time, Disney is facing another free speech controversy after Zegler used her casting as the new Snow White to denounce the entire premise and appeal of the original 1937 movie, calling Prince Charming a presumptive “stalker” and promising to ditch the whole love interest. She told an interviewer that Snow White is “not going to be saved by the prince and she’s not going to be dreaming about true love.”

What followed was a familiar groan to another Disney woke remake that seems to delight only Disney actors and diversity officers.

The problems with the film were magnified when even the dwarves seemed to get the axe after “Game of Thrones” star Peter Dinklage expressed his disapproval for the film and objected to the very notion of any of the seven traditional figures making a reappearance: “You’re still making that f—ing backwards story about seven dwarfs living in a cave together, what the f— are you doing, man? Have I done nothing to advance the cause from my soap box? I guess I’m not loud enough.”

He was indeed loud enough (which is surprising since his movie, “Cyrano,” bombed at the box office and took in just $6.4 million for a $30 million production). Soon after his objections, Disney posted a new vision of the dwarves as a happy band of male and female, racially diverse group of non-dwarves (except for one actor).

The backlash (and the actors’ strike) has now resulted in a delay of the release of the remake for another year and the sudden re-appearance of the original dwarves. (Disney insists that the earlier actors were just “stand ins” for the dwarves, which is a bit odd since the dwarves are digitally produced.)

Yet, right on cue, Zegler was back in the news with the release of the new images and date by reaffirming her earlier comments. Zegler encourages other actors to follow her lead in speaking out on such subjects.

Echoing Dinklage, Zegler declared that “we have to be fearless and loud in order to be heard, and to prepare for the backlash that occasionally comes with that outspokenness.”

Her rep quickly ran forward to say, “Snow White was not mentioned in her quotes.”

The concern was obvious with an actress stirring the same pot that has caused the movie to tank in promotions. For the rep, there is also the concern that talent are subject to contracts with reservation clauses on disparaging or damaging public comments or conduct.

The Zegler controversy reflects the fact that free speech is different in a corporate context. Even when the NFL caved to kneelers (despite countervailing rules against demonstrations in games), it had every right to bar such protests. Companies like Home Depot and Whole Foods have prevailed in barring the wearing of Black Lives Matter symbols. These companies are allowed to block political expression in the workplace deemed inimical to their brand or business.

Disney is now leading an interesting counter effort in fighting for the right of a corporation to speak on political issues even to the alienation of its consumers. It certainly has that right.

Over 60% of voters support the language in the Florida parental rights act. Nevertheless, Disney can make such political campaigns the priority over actual sales so long as the shareholders do not revolt.

From the outset of the fight with Florida, some of us could not see the possible winning strategy for Disney. Disney is losing money in critical areas, raising prices, embroiled in internal conflicts and laying off workers.

At the same time, CEO Bob Iger is facing an investor revolt.

Disney appears to be trying to move beyond its fight with Florida, but it is continuing to litigate its right to free speech. Ironically, many liberals who opposed corporate free speech rights in cases like Citizens United are supporting Disney in its claims.  

Yet, the problem is not Disney’s right to speak as a corporation on political issues, but its right to continued favored status in the state.

Even if the controversy led to a reexamination of the status, would a court actually say that the state was barred from ordering greater corporate uniformity because Disney took a controversial public position? If so, Disney could insulate its corporate status by picking a fight with the state.

DeSantis replaced the handpicked Disney board and the state moved to force Disney to comply with the same laws as other corporations. The company is arguing that these measures were pure retaliation. The question is whether a court would feel comfortable in using such a perceived motivation to block an important state policy for uniformity in regulation.

Disney elected to go head-to-head in opposing the parental rights legislation and lost its favored status with both the state and many families. The question in the litigation is whether that is a prohibited cost to impose on the company or the cost of becoming a political advocate.

In the end, Iger will have to decide if Disney is now so profitable that it has “reached a point where you don’t work for money.” Snow White and the shareholders may hold different views on that question.

198 thoughts on “Disney’s Latest Dilemma: Free Speech In the Happiest Place on Earth”

  1. Jack Smith is slowly being exposed as a shill for for Biden (Obama).
    Lot of evidence cited in yesterdays hearing about the phony Documents scam, persecution.

    In part, the defense zeroed in on 6 documents the govt claims are classified, but discovery has failed to provide evidence of the classification.
    Biden (Obama) removed Trumps Security Clearence and then reclassified documents Trump had declassified through the proccess as laid out in the last EO.
    Years worth of security footage is in discovery documents…..so the Govt has hacked MAL security cams. Warrant-less searches is something Trump is familiar with.

    Trump’s lawyers told Judge Cannon they discovered a June 2023 letter asking DOE to remove Trump’s ACTIVE SECURITY CLEARANCE.” – A few weeks AFTER Smith handed down classified documents indictment.
    Trump’s lawyers told Judge Cannon this afternoon they have evidence that the Biden White House collaborated with NARA, DOJ, and intel agencies to determine which documents to include in Jack Smith’s indictment.
    Trove of evidence includes “years” worth of security footage from MAL

  2. I don’t understand the logic behind the free speech claim by Disney. Disney was not prevented from providing their views on any subject. That is, the state of Florida did not impose a gag order on Disney. But speech is not inconsequential. That is, there may be repercussions applied legally. For example Anheurser-Busch found out that who they use to represent their products and what they say to promote their product, Bud Light, has consequences. AB can certainly say (and did) what they want but then AB cannot complain if the public does not align with their views. That is a risk that corporations (and citizens including correspondents to this blog) take. Disney found out that special business treatment can be revoked if they “bit the state hand that fed it”. That Disney finds that the state of Florida revokes any special treatment and now treats it by the same rules as any other corporation is hardly a restriction on their speech or business practice, rather it is the natural consequence of a corporate blunder. With special business treatment granted by the state of Florida, there is an implied contract for Disney to be an exceptionally well behaved corporate citizen. Disney exercised their free speech rights at their peril and rediscovered the concept of natural consequences. In my non-professional view, they have no leg to stand on.

    1. “But speech is not inconsequential.”

      Excellent points.

      Ever notice the Left’s double standard on this issue?

      Speech made by Leftists should *not* carry consequences. (And should be swallowed as “they have the right to say it.”)

      However, speech by someone on the Right (e.g., Trump) should always carry consequences (whether that speech is real or imagined).

  3. Nailed it twice. Shareholders. AND STATE INCORPRATION LAWS. can’t fraud on the state. You either doing business as or u not . And the business judgement rule. How does that unfold? With free speech? Shareholders are coming. Victory funds. Et al calpers . Fiduciary duty rings a bell.

  4. During the 90 days that began on April 6 in 1994, Rwanda experienced the most intensive slaughter in this blood-filled century

    Families murdered in their home, people hunted down as they fled by soldiers and militia, through farmland and woods as if they were animals.

    “All over the world there were people like me sitting in offices who did not fully appreciate the depth and speed with which you were being engulfed by this unimaginable terror.” Clinton is a filthy, unrepentant liar and war criminal.

    He had inadequately reacted to the genocide, he said, because he had not really known what had been happening in Rwanda. He didn’t lift a finger. “inadequately reacted.” My G-D, this lying punk.

    a. As the Archive notes, “beginning April 8th, the massacres in Rwanda were reported on the front pages of major newspapers and on radio and television broadcasts almost daily, including the major papers read by U.S. officials and policy elites.” And at that time human rights activists in Washington–who had close relationships with national security adviser Tony Lake and staff members of Clinton’s national security council–were pounding on the doors of the White House demanding action and suggesting options.
    David Corn

    And Trump is a lying bum?

    Philip Gourevitch of the New Yorker recounted in horrific detail the story of the genocide and the world’s failure to stop it. President Bill Clinton, a famously avid reader, expressed shock. He sent copies of Gourevitch’s articles to his second-term national-security adviser, Sandy Berger. The articles bore confused, angry, searching queries in the margins. “Is what he’s saying true?” Clinton wrote with a thick black felt-tip pen beside heavily underlined paragraphs. “How did this happen?” he asked, adding, “I want to get to the bottom of this.” The President’s urgency and outrage were oddly timed. As the terror in Rwanda had unfolded, Clinton had shown virtually no interest in stopping the genocide, and his Administration had stood by as the death toll rose into the hundreds of thousands.

    Thanks to the National Security Archive (www.nsarchive.org), a nonprofit organization that uses the Freedom of Information Act to secure the release of classified U.S. documents, this account also draws on hundreds of pages of newly available government records. This material provides a clearer picture than was previously possible of the interplay among people, motives, and events. It reveals that the U.S. government knew enough about the genocide early on to save lives, but passed up countless opportunities to intervene.

    Seeing the situation in Rwanda deteriorating rapidly, Dallaire pleaded for logistical support and reinforcements of 2,000 soldiers for UNAMIR; he estimated that a total of 5,000 well-equipped troops would give the UN enough leverage to put an end to the killings. The UN Security Council refused, partly due to US opposition.

    1. Classified papers show Clinton was aware of ‘final solution’ to eliminate Tutsis

      Rory Carroll in Johannesburg
      Wed 31 Mar 2004 10.59 EST
      President Bill Clinton’s administration knew Rwanda was being engulfed by genocide in April 1994 but buried the information to justify its inaction, according to classified documents made available for the first time.

      Senior officials privately used the word genocide within 16 days of the start of the killings, but chose not to do so publicly because the president had already decided not to intervene.

      Golly Slick, thought u was hanging in the office just dying to hear from Rwanda. A million people were butchered because ur a filthy pig.

  5. Disney is losing revenue because it acted petulantly, while hiding behind free speech. Ditto for Democrats. Democrats petulant, shallow, and hateful “free speech” regarding Pro-Palestinian talking points is now costing them. Biden, cognitively impaired, not only has a problem with his schismatic party. Biden is the problem domestically and globally, and our enemies in Iran know it.

    Disney has an anti-family problem and a fetish for sexualizing children. Democrats have a Nazi persona.

    Schadenfreude indeed.

    Democrats Have an Anti-Semitism Problem

    After the House last week overwhelmingly passed a resolution condemning Hamas for its attack in southern Israel Oct. 7, New Jersey Democrat Josh Gottheimer wrote on social media that the 15 Democrats who didn’t vote for the measure were “despicable and do not speak for the party.” Mr. Gottheimer was only half right. Those 15 members from progressive constituencies may in fact represent the Democratic future. The party of Franklin D. Roosevelt has an anti-Semitism problem. This week progressive activist groups released a “Gaza 2024 statement” asserting they won’t vote for Joe Biden “if he does not end U.S. support for Israel’s brutal war in Gaza.” The announcement offers background on “Israeli ethnic cleansing and genocide in Gaza.” An open letter this week from 100 Columbia professors called the Hamas massacre “a military response by a people who had endured crushing and unrelenting state violence from an occupying power.”

    Rationally, many large Jewish donors already are pulling the plug on giving to anti-Semitic fermentation tanks such as Harvard, Columbia and Penn. The party of FDR could be next.

    Wall Street Journal

    1. “The party of FDR could be next.” The party of FDR ignored reports of the Holocaust as it was happening. Earlier that same party ignored reports of the Holodomor. Then it ignored reports of Soviet spies in the federal government. And, ironically, as referenced in comments here, when it became the party of Clinton, it ignored the genocide in Rwanda. Exactly what you would expect from the party of compassion.

  6. Most of this is a giant Yawn.

    Disney and its actors can do as they wish regarding making movies.

    If those movies fail – the market has spoken.
    It does not matter to the rest of us WHY those movies failed – though most of us understand.

    If Disney can significantly profit and make investors happy by producing woke movies for kids – I am fine with that.

    And if not – investors will flee and Disney will have reduced its ability to make movies PERIOD.

    While public debate over WHY disney is failing is of value – though I think most of us understand why.

    To those such as these actors who think that analysis is wrong – work it out, make the movie however you please and when it bombs – do not come running to me.

    I would note that there is an enormous amount of “woke stuff” that consumers – and particularly those in entertainment will be uneffected by – even if it is unrealistic. Because entertainment is unrealistic. So long as writers and actors succeed in the “suspension of disbeleif” it does not matter.

    As an example increasingly action moviews have female leads. Audiences do not blink when a woman takes on a role resevered for Arnold Sxhwartzeneger or Liam Nieson. We suspend disbeleif and accept that a woman can take on a dozne men and defeat them – which is unreal, but then in reality Danial Craig is not goiing to survive a battle against a dozen opponents either.

    But some things do not fly – not with parents, not with kids and not with adult audiences.

    If you want to make the 100’s of milions that a blockbuster makes – you need to make the wide audience happy – not that of an artfilm.

    You can rant and rail at audiences all you want.
    You can ot force them to pay to see something they reject.

  7. The reason that government CAN NOT give prefered status to any groups is specifically because of issues like this.

    And that is the correct solution that avoids constitutional pitfalls. but if applied correctly it would leven government no role in the economy or in education beyond enforcing contracts. and punishing violent conduct.

    There is no doubt that Florida can not interfere with Disney’s excercise of its free speech rights by constraining other actual rights of Disney.

    But if you allow government to grant a person of business a special priviledge. then you can not arbitrarily condiction the revokation oof that priviledge on the presection that it is done in retaliation.
    Otherwise all any entity grants a special priviledge must do to hold it in perpituiity is to continuously offend government.

    I have no problem accepting that DeSantis is retaliating against Disney.

    But there are only two legitimate results – DeSantis can not retailiate, and Disney can not have the priviledge,
    or FL could not legitimately grant the priviledge.

    Frankly the later is prefered as we do not want to have government bribing private actors any more than private actors bribing government.

    1. Estovir! Thank you! Oh my….it’s one of my very favorite hymns, and was a favorite of my choral director/minister of music father’s.
      Our church organist played a dramatic, magnificent, solo organ arrangement of it (“pulling out all the stops”, 4 manuals, full volume)
      as the Postlude/Recessional for my beloved mother’s funeral. It was a fitting send-off for “Mama”……our saint.
      I still get emotional when I hear it played (or sung).
      Thank you for reminding me of that precious memory. I hope you had a meaningful All Saints Day, dear friend.

  8. Turley may have not perceived the “Citizens United” ruling in a totally fair manner (referenced in the above article).

    Probably most opponents of “Citizens United” oppose corporate-persons having MORE rights than human-persons.

    Most of us don’t oppose any corporation having Freedom of Speech, but regular citizens usually don’t have lunch with their member of Congress and receive special access to law makers.

    It’s also crazy to think James Madison and the Founding Fathers created the Bill of Rights for non-humans. Turley misrepresented these opponents.

    1. Corporations are comprised of America’s “best and brightest,” who are among its most productive and successful citizens and should be heard. The criminals are the unions that contribute “dirty money” obtained through illegal criminal acts, such as trespassing on and damaging private property, slashing tires, breaking windshields, causing disturbances of the peace, intimidating innocent citizens, etc., conducted by employees who have requested employment, then deliberately refused to report for duty and are AWOL (beggars can’t be choosers).

      Did you mention the “corporate tax,” which is an insidious fraud perpetrated on America, understanding that corporations have no money but that which is provided by consumers and that consumers pay the so-called “corporate tax” in addition to all the other taxes consumers pay to fund the anti- and unconstitutional principles of communism in America?

      1. Corporations are not inherently our best and brightest – though successful businesses are.
        Unions are not inherently evil. But government taking sides in disputes – between unions and businesses

        There is nothing inherently wrong with corporate taxes. What is wrong is failing to understand that all taxes are ultimately paid in reduced standard of living.

        You can eleiminate personal income taxes, property taxes and sales taxes and just run a country on corporate taxes.

        What you should not do is play games hiding the fact that government is consuming about 40% of what we produce – and worse still paying for it mostly by borrowing.

        We KNOW from massive data through the 20th century that the optimal tax rates is when government revenue is below 19% of GDP.

        We know from poorer 19th century data that it is likely below 9% of GDP. Lincoln fought the Civil war with total taxes not exceeding 8% of GDP.

        1. A free economy cannot produce enough jobs to employ all workers, The government spends money that produces jobs in which earnings are spent to buys goods and services, increasing the number of workers who are employed.

          1. Brad there is absolutely no data to support that.

            Further even if true – which it is not, the argument is stupid.

            “While traveling by car during one of his many overseas travels, Professor Milton Friedman spotted scores of road builders moving earth with shovels instead of modern machinery. When he asked why powerful equipment wasn’t used instead of so many laborers, his host told him it was to keep employment high in the construction industry. If they used tractors or modern road building equipment, fewer people would have jobs was his host’s logic.

            “Then instead of shovels, why don’t you give them spoons and create even more jobs?” Friedman inquired.”

            #4 ranked Ideas Respec economist Robert Barro has the worlds most thorough database on government spending.

            Barro has found that on average for ever $1 that government spends, it creats between $0.25 and $0.35 in actual value – while a privately spent $1 produces about $1.15 in value.

            The FACT is that government spend is just about the least efficient way to accomplish anything.
            And effectively LOWERS our standard of living significantly.

          2. I would seriously think about the Friedman anecdote I provided ?

            Standard of living rises by producing more of what humans value with less human effort. PERIOD.

            Even Keyness eventually disowned the fallacy that employing people to accomplish nothing was beneficial.

            Your claim regarding the ability of a free economy to produce jobs violates the laws of supply and demand – which are immutable.

            Your claim is also at odds with history. If your claim were correct the Luddites of the 18th century would have been correct.

            If your claim was correct we should deliberately do things with less efficiency in order to hire more people.

            Again it is what of value we produce and how efficently we produce it that determines standard of living.
            Not how many we employ.

            We talk constantly of GDP -= that is what we have produced.
            We can not consume what we do not produce.
            The theorectical max standard of living would be infinite production of what humans value with zero people employed to produce it.

            Though the laws of supply and demand preclude that. If there is a sufficient pool of under utilized labor the laws of supply and demand require than in an actual free market that labor will be used for something.

          3. Please cite the Constitution wherein that power is provided. You just referenced the Communist Manifesto.

        2. Optimal tax rates are managed communism.

          Taxes merely sufficient to pay for debt, defense and general Welfare are finite and severely limited to the advantage of free people.

          Taxes are not the government’s business, taxes are the Constitution’s business and the Constitution severely limits taxation – while it maximally frees the people.

    2. Probably most opponents of “Citizens United” oppose corporate-persons having MORE rights than human-persons

      But how is giving special privileges to the Disney Corporation not an example of that?

    3. Citizens United had little to do with corporations.

      A corporation is nothing but a legal structure to distribute profits. Creating a corporation does not mean you sacrifice your protections from the government.

      The first amendment did not create free speech. It exists, like air and sunlight. It just is.
      The Bill of Rights handcuffed the Government from using their unlimited power to abuse the people.

      Thus, The first Amendment forbid congress from pass a law limiting the speech of citizens <(congress shall make no law)

      Quit beating this horse, it has been dead for decades. Congress shall make no law…

      1. With respect a corporation is not a legal structure to distribute profits. It is a legal structure for many people to act in common, and it predates the founding by centuries.

        All corporations are not “for profit” – churches are corporations, the ACLU is a corporation as is the NAACP.

        Citizen’s united was a corporation formed to produce political adds targeting Hillary Clinton. It was not a for profit organization.
        It was specifically engaged in political advocacy the most protected form of speech.

        Coprpoations and corporate rights -= the agregate rights of humans acting in groups have been arround since before the founding.

        The claim of the left is that humnas LOSE rights when they act together.

    4. The S. Ct. has held since 1886 that corporations are legal persons under the 14th Amendment. Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Rail Road 1886. In 1947, Congress defined the term “person” to refer to corporations, unless otherwise indicated in the text of a statute. 1 US Code 1. If Madison had a different view, it has been long ago “overruled.”

      1. Further they did so out of convenience. The alternative in a case involving a corporation is to require the courts to examine the rights of each and every shareholder.

        The left forgets that all orgainzations are made of people. And you can not deprive people of rights when they choose to act together.

        1. WordPress refuses to offer the “remember me” box as an option. Apparently, its greatest desire is for all to constantly log in; to log in upon every single comment. Talk about your user-unfriendly Marquis de Sadists!

      2. If secession is constitutional, and it is, it is not prohibited and, therefore, fully constitutional, everything Lincoln et al. did remains invalid, illegitimate, illicit and unconstitutional.

        Overlay secession on the 10th Amendment.

    5. Corporations are not “non-humans” – Corporations are nothing more than many individuals coming together for a common purpose.
      There is no corporation that is not ultimately owned by and answerable to one or more humans.

      Corporations have no more rights than individuals.

      That means they have more POWER than acting individually, but it does not change their rights.

      Pretty sure that if you ask for lunch with your congressmen you will get it.
      Absolutely certain that if you and 20 other voters that share your view ask for lunch with your congressmen you will get it.

      Yes, congressmen are more interested in what 10,000 voters want than what 1 voter wants.
      That is why we have rights – so that congressmen ability to please the 10,000 is constrained by the rights of the one individual.

      It is crazy to think that James madison intended a federal govenrment with the power it has now.
      Limited government was how Madison and our founders expected government to be constrained.

      When government can not excersize a power – no one seeks to rent it.

  9. OT


    Is that an elephant in the room or an 800-pound gorilla?

    Delivery boys making $170K+???

    Can you say, “Inflation?”

    There needs to be an impartial and thorough investigation.

    PROBLEM: Antitrust laws are unconstitutional – competition is the answer and there has been no vigorous answer since UPS stole or was gifted the “cream” of parcels from the post office.

    1. I love you George, but please advise which part of the Constitution forbids antitrust laws? And how about football coaches making $10 Million/year?

      1. That part of the constitutions that forbids government from interfering in private contracts.

        Why can’t football coaches make $10M a year ? Do you really beleive anyone plays a coach $10M if they do not produce $10M in value ?

        If you beleive that – offer your services as a coach for half price. See if there are any takers ?

        In a free market NO price – not that for goods, or services exceeds the value created for more than a very short period.

        A coach that does not deliver is FIRED.

            1. By your logic, a law forbidding conspiracies to commit murder, or bank robbery, are unconstitutional.

              1. “By your logic, a law forbidding conspiracies to commit murder, or bank robbery, are unconstitutional.”


                Since when are those a voluntary agreement and trade among all of the concerned parties, i.e., a contract?

      2. “[W]hich part of the Constitution forbids antitrust laws?”

        Ex post facto, for one. The “laws” are arbitrary and capricious, for another.

        More importantly, they punish a businessman for his success.

      3. And I love you also, Wise Old Lawyer, Esquire!

        The American resolution is not dictatorship but free market competition; the answer is always competition. Those who resort to profanity in speech have failed; those who resort to tyranny in enterprise and industry have failed. Equity is the absence of bias and favoritism. The American thesis is freedom and self-reliance. And the answer is always competition.

        I would like you to cite the Constitution, wherein Congress is provided any power to engage in central planning, control of the means of production, redistribution of wealth, and social engineering. You cannot—that “dictatorship of the hired help” does not exist in American fundamental law. You will, by contrast, find it featured prominently in Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto. His motto was and remains, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

        Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto 59 years after the adoption of the Constitution because none of the principles of the Communist Manifesto were in the Constitution. Had the principles of the Communist Manifesto been in the Constitution, Karl Marx would have had no reason to write the Communist Manifesto. The principles of the Communist Manifesto were not in the Constitution then and the principles of the Communist Manifesto are not in the Constitution now.

        Government exists, under the Constitution and Bill of Rights, to provide maximal freedom to individuals while government is severely limited and restricted to merely facilitating that maximal freedom of individuals through the provision of security and infrastructure only.

        The entire communistic American welfare state is unconstitutional including, but not limited to, matriculation affirmative action, grade-inflation affirmative action, employment affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, minimum wage, rent control, social services, forced busing, public housing, utility subsidies, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, HHS, HUD, EPA, Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.

        Article 1, Section 8, provides Congress the power to tax ONLY for “…general (all, the whole) Welfare…,” omitting and, thereby, excluding any power to tax for individual Welfare, specific Welfare, particular Welfare, favor or charity. The same article enumerates and provides Congress the power to regulate ONLY money, the “flow” of commerce, and land and naval Forces. Additionally, the 5th Amendment right to private property was initially qualified by the Framers and is, therefore, absolute, allowing no further qualification, and allowing ONLY the owner the power to “claim and exercise” dominion over private property.

        “[Private property is] that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”

        – James Madison

        Next question, Esteemed Counselor.

        1. Nice try George, but that is not an answer. I like what you write but unfortunately you have pretty much zero support in the Supreme Court. The battle you are fighting was lost about a century ago.

    2. Antitrust laws are unconstitutional – competition is the answer

      Antitrust laws are aimed at protecting competition. They target anti-competitive practices.

      1. There are no “anti-competitive” practices that are not also crimes – no matter who commits them that should be illegal.

        I would further note that there is plenty of evidence that the so called “anti-competitive practices” DO NOT WORK.

        There is no example of a monopoly that exists without government behind it.

        Businesses are fragile – monopolies even more so.
        Further big businesses are more fragile than small ones.

        I beleive there is only one company that was the to 10 in the world in 1965 that remains in the top 10.
        Most have FAILED. Most of the biggest companies in the world today did not exist in 1965.

        If you use force or fraud against others that is ALREADY barred by ordinary criminal law.

        WE need 3 types of law.

        Criminal Law – a priori laws barring and punishing the deliberate use of force or fraud against others.

        Contracts laws – the use of FORCE by government to compel people to keep their binding agreements.

        Torts laws – these require those whose actions result in REAL harm to others make those they harmed whole.

        That is the entirety of legitimate law and all we need.

      2. “They target anti-competitive practices.”


        They punish the most productive, and protect those who are less productive. They penalize success and reward mediocrity.

      3. That’s arbitrary and incorrect. In freedom, with free enterprise in a free society, competition is always the answer and the only answer. Once you begin the tyranny of antitrust legislation, you lose freedom. You lose equity and begin to assign bias and favor; you move out of this freedom reality and into redistributive, collectivist, fantastic communism. Period. It is too simple for you to grasp. Your deep-seated, immutable desire is power and control. Sorry. You are not in the Constitution. Freedom is.

      4. Antitrust laws are unconstitutional and without any legal basis under the Constitution.

        You like them; the Constitution does not.

    3. Anti-trust laws also target problems that do not actually exist.

      The easiest way to understand why antitrust is stupid is to look at JP Morgan and the London Whale about a decade ago.

      The Whale tried to corner the market – essentially what anti-trust is supposed to stop by using JP Morgans tens of billions in financial power.

      He was wiped out by a small but smart hedgefund that picked up what he was trying to do and bet HEAVILY against him. After that others joined.

      JP Morgan lost $4B

      Studies in the 80’s found that even were a natural monopoly to occur – the market dominating player gets very small advantage from monopoly power.

      Raising prices resulting in excess profits drives investors to existing or new competitors.

      The laws of supply and demand are immutable. There is no monopoly that can work arround them.

      The only way for actual preditory pricing is with government protection.

        1. Wise, I am not sure what you are referring to but the break-up of Rockefeller made him richer. The components were worth more than the whole.

          1. Normally what Rockefeller is accused of is negotiating rail freight rates lower than offered to competitiors.

            Standard oil would go to the railroads and commit to hundreds of rail cars per day – every day no matter what – in return for lower prices per car or per gallon.
            Standard oil also built its own tanker cars to go in those trains. So all the railroads had to do was deliver.

            Competitors could have gotten the same rates – for the same commitments.

            Standard oils rail contracts resulting in significant buildout of the rail system – because the committments by Standard oil payed for the expansion of rail service.

            Most of us understand that if you commit up front to buying a large number of something over a long period of time you will get a much better rate.

            1. Absolutely! But they called Rockefeller greedy because he had a lot of money and charged those less efficient companies a higher price (like they should). Let’s get even, said the anti-greed people.

              As I said earlier, they got even by breaking the Rockefeller companies up. That changed very little where economics was concerned. Larger and guaranteed volume continued to get better prices. When they got even with Rockefeller and split him up, his companies were worth more as individual ones than as a whole. Rockefeller became richer.

              What some people forget, and I think Estovir realizes despite the comments, is that there are 330 million people in America. Picking out one randomly to regulate will not provide the expertise required. Picking out one from the executive portion of a half-dozen of the largest pharmaceutical companies will be more suitable.

              The regulators come from the companies regulated. That is why there is a revolving door between regulators and companies. The solution to the problem is to employ people who are knowledgeable but are willing to buck the prevailing system. Better yet is to trust the free market.

              That is where people like Trump come in. He may not be thought of by many as the nicest guy, but he understands where the bodies are buried, who is burying them, and how the decisions are made. That is the type of person to clean up the mess.

              The status quo is to hire a lackey from the pharmaceutical companies who does things that look like they are hurting big pharm. They might be, but at the same time, they are looking for competitive advantages. The $ 1-$2 billion in costs might adversely affect them, but it kills the ability of new companies to compete while the consumer pays.
              One can extend the logic to the slightly different scenario we see today, where smaller firms are becoming the pipelines for big pharma.

        2. The rockefellers out competed other businesses they did not engage in any conduct that was actually wrong.

          Through out John D. Rockefellors lifetime the pricce of keroscene and later gasoline DECLINED consistently.
          Rockefeller built a business empire and a huge fortune by providing people with a better safer cheaper product in ever larger quantities.
          He put his competition out of business by doing a better job of provideing consumers a better cheaper safer product.

          The falacy ofanti-trust laws was demonstrated by the fact that the breakup of Standard oil resulted in the first significant price increases in decades.

  10. These companies are allowed to block political expression in the workplace deemed inimical to their brand or business.

    The pharmaceutical industry invests great effort in creating a brand for their prescription drugs. Selling science is a very difficult task, esp one where non-physician consumers are part of the market mix, albeit secondary to physicians. Witness the massive confusion on vaccines and how every Tom, Dick and Harry today places themselves on pedestals when it comes to their knowledge of vaccine mechanism of action and adverse events. No pharma company would ever think of denigrating their product brand. It would be suicidal given the complex message involved in selling science.

    Shortly after medical school I entered Big Pharma, and I learned how jealous the industry can be for their product brand. It becomes their golden calf, rightly so because it needs to make money to offset R&D expenditures. Thus when Disney became the first entity to retaliate against the State of Florida for passing legislation protecting children from sexualized school curriculum, it was ludicrous from a business, branding, sales and marketing perspective. That the State of Florida replied in kind to Disney was simply the Laws of Motion as articulated by Isaac Newton, esp the Third Law.

    The Left love to frame the argument in their terms, their favor, and they know the Leftist MSM will propagate their lies. I learned in high school in our debate team, to never let your opponent frame the argument. Disney cast the first volley. They were first to retaliate on a matter that was outside of their business plan and market goals.

    Joseph Biden started this monstrosity of corporations throwing their fund$, $trength and power$ to bludgeon Americans re: Left Wing ideologies. IIRC the Major League Baseball association, Coca-Cola Corporation, and others punishing the State of Georgia by repeating Biden’s lies regarding Jim Crow on steroids and Georgia election laws passed in response to the rigged elections of 2020.

    Major League Baseball announced Friday that it is moving the 2021 All-Star Game out of Atlanta in response to a new Georgia law that has civil rights groups concerned about its potential to restrict voting access for people of color.

    Now comes Disney crying because of loss revenue. Naturally the Left is not going to shovel money into Disney’s financial books. The Left have moved on to other targets to bludgeon: Jews.

    Losing revenue for any company is always a red flag as to leadership of a company. Disney made a foolish and potentially fatal decision in retaliating against Florida’s newly passed laws in protecting children. Disney came way too late to the realization that lecturing, hammering, and targeting parents as evil, with a laser like focus, might work for George Soros funded Democrat Party, but it does not work in business. That their recently launched movies have had successive flops is just gravy IMO. Couldnt happen to a better organization.

    Whether Disney survives is anyones guess. Whether anyone cares is another matter. That Disney is no longer the organization once envisioned by its founder, is not disputed. Winning back their customers? Thats like expecting Democrats to apologize for locking down schools and society as strategies to mitigate COVID.

    The Mouse that Disney built has been caught in its own trap. Florida does not need Disney. Biden, Democrat Governors and Mayors have increased Florida’s revenue by forcing millions of Americans to abandon blue states/cities.

    DeSantis should make his friend Dave Rubin, a Jew, a married gay male, and a father of 2 children via surrogacy, a spokesman for the Florida Council of Tourism.

    Never let your opponent frame the argument.

    1. The most fundimental problem with Big Pharma is that it is protected from competition by government from small and medium businesses.

      Stupid purpotedtly anti-trust or pro consumer laws create barriers to entry that keep out competiton.

      Monopoly power – even limited monopoly power is always granted exclusively by government.

      1. Big Pharma is that it is protected from competition by government from small and medium businesses

        Actually, no. It takes $1 Billion to bring a new drug to market in the USA. No other country has this obstacle. Neither small nor medium businesses have that type of money. As it is, Big Pharma doesn’t have the resources to invent new molecules for drug development. Biotech now invents the new drugs because they have the luxury to be solely focused on the science involved. Big Pharma brings them to market because they have the vast experience to deal with the government bureaucracy.

        The biggest problem with Big Pharma is the same with most companies and businessmen: greed.

        1. Estovir – respectfully your argument is “no, but yes”

          Why does it take $1B to bring a drug to market ? That would be US laws.
          The government driven cost of developing a drug protects Big Pharma from competition

          The fact that it costs $1b to bring a drug to market (I beleive it is close to $2B today) means that any problems that can not produce $1B in profits will never be developed.

          Your biotech/big pharma split does not change anything.

          No the problem with Big Pharma is not greed.

          Your smarter than that.

          First there is absolutely no business anywhere of anykind that is able to deviate significantly from standard Risk/ROI ratios. If there was one that had high ROI out of line with Risk EVERYONE would invest in it.

          Big Pharma’s profits are NOT unusual relative to its risks.

          I am not looking to defend all the conduct of those in the Pharma industry – just note that it is not unusual, and that with or without government it is self regulating.

          “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages. ”
          Adam Smith

          1. Why does it take $1B to bring a drug to market ? That would be US laws.

            No; the “Deep State” paradigm applies. The FDA is fickle, capricious, shoots from the hip and is beholden onto its own reflection like Narcissus. There is so much self-adulation that takes place within the FDA, and likely now Obama’s monstrosity of Deep State, that any company going up against the FDA must have rich resources to dance to the pied piper of the FDA. If you want to bring to market a new drug, or seek a new indication on an already branded drug, you must throw yourself to the mercies and fickleness of the FDA. It was maddening for me because in my latter years I was in the oncology division at one of the top 3 oncology pharma companies. Much of what is prescribed for oncology is off-label precisely because of the road blocks the FDA throws at pharma. Oncology is rarely a disease of cures but more about extending life by 6 months, a few years, maybe remission. Oncology is also multi-therapy with a complicated dosage and scheduling depending on the 3 or 4 drugs used in combination. Getting the FDA approval on each drug combination, generics and branded, dosage, schedule, cancer state (neoadjuvant, adjuvant, metastatic, etc) is impractical and detrimental to patients. So the FDA creates many unnecessary burdens on Pharma to get an indication pre and post-launch. Additionally, there are the nonscientific matters in the drug approval process: regulatory, legal, marketing, safety, labeling, the list is formidable. Americans do not appreciate the work and money involved to get the drugs they have.

            Big Pharma used to invent new drugs and bring them to market. Not anymore. The Feds have made it so difficult that, as I stated, Big Pharma no longer has the resources (i.e. manpower, scientists, researchers, labs, raw materials, etc). Small to medium size companies can focus on these latter issues. When it comes to FDA approval, Big Pharma comes in handy.

            Americans like to blame Big Pharma for everything. I too have my critiques of them. However the conspiracies about Big Pharma, both on the Left (e.g. RFK Jr, Ralph Nadler, etc) and now the Right (e.g. Alex Berenson, Joe Rogan, Epoch Times) are detached from reality. Is their corruption? you betcha. Where is there not corruption in America? Ask your wife if she can sing her praises of the legal system as a PD

            Economic theories are just that: theories. Reality involves the human condition, and the human condition is flawed to the core, ruled my appetites. I began and end with the following

            The FDA is fickle, capricious, shoots from the hip and is beholden onto its own reflection like Narcissus. Arent we all?


            Why does it take $1B to bring a drug to market ? That would be US laws.

            Correct. Unconstitutional laws. Freedom, free enterprise, free markets, and free market competition ARE the law. The constitution allows no regulation of any free enterprise or industry. The Communist Manifesto does. Regulation must be done by the industry itself to protect itself from deleterious litigation. Those presenting covetousness and jealousy herein desire unconstitutional dictatorship over free enterprise and industry. Congress has no power to set wages, set prices, or regulate anything other than money, commerce and land and naval Forces. The 5th Amendment allows only the owner of private property to “claim and exercise” dominion over private property. Property damage, bodily injury, etc., are illegal and actionable.

      2. “The most fundimental problem with Big Pharma is that it is protected from competition by government from small and medium businesses.”

        Absolutely! Though one cannot forget the importance of reputation, today reputation’s importance is diminishing. Reputation helped build mom-and-pop companies because the consumers lacked the means to research what they bought. Moreover, the consumer is not in charge. He is told what to do, and what to buy because insurers control every purchase they pay for. Even the physician has lost control since his paycheck most frequently comes from an insurer. This present methodology fails to increase quality or reduce cost.

        The Government sets up crazy systems that increase costs and bar entry for newer competition. In that way, many actions by the government cause less competition rather than more.

        There is an argument that it costs $1 Billion to get a drug to market, and that is true, except today, it is probably more than $1 Billion. That is why multinational pharmaceutical companies control the market, and smaller companies cannot compete. The $1 Billion passes on to the consumer, so it doesn’t bother the big or well-financed companies, but it protects the big companies from competition. Yet, that $1 Billion doesn’t protect the consumer the way it should since the whole process can be rigged.

        These companies are so huge they control the pipelines in both directions. They control distribution to such an extent that an inferior drug marketed by Pfizer will rapidly become the best-selling drug while the superior drug hopes it can remain on the market. The same happens in the entry market pipeline. The producers of new pharmaceuticals, knowing that they will eventually have to use Pfizer or its equivalent for marketing, provide their pipeline to Pfizer by selling or splitting the profits. The government is a distant secondary player in this market.

        The marketplace is a complex system that includes patients and doctors who one would think control the choices. They do not. The control of choices is made by the insurers (and hospitals), the middleman, the government, and the lobbyists to name a few. None of them directly connect to the patient. I won’t go into some of the poor quality control issues permitted by this system except to say we are kept in the dark, purposefully.

        We need to revamp our entire method of buying medications. I do not worry about greedy businessmen. Greed pushes them to innovate and produce new and better products while the family asks, where’s dad?

  11. “It’s the [private property], stupid!”

    – James Carville


    The 5th Amendment right to private property prevails over and trumps the 1st Amendment freedom of speech.

    Shareholders enjoy the freedom to sell their position and buy the competition.

    Consumers may boycott or purchase another product.

    Individuals may accept or reject employment.

    “[Private property is] that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”

    – James Madison

Leave a Reply