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.
Been some good news as of late:
Elon Musk posted to X, ” The great wakening from woke has happened. This is good for civilization.”
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 30, 2023
The Free Press recently posted this article Stories About ‘Waking Up from Woke’
https://www.thefp.com/p/waking-up-from-woke-seneca-scott-migrant-crisis
The absolute worst people try to use it as a slur to what they don’t or can’t understand. And being woke one can understand, the others use it to hide their willful ignorance of the world and those around them.
being woke is a slur for good reason, what it stands for and who stands for it are both worthy of disdain and neither benefits society at large or even the individuals it purports to protect.
Your willful ignorance of these facts is further evidence of woke being a slur, a well-deserved slur. Do you believe in science, too???? lololol.
Maybe, but the absolute best people and even the tepid ones use it as a slur because they have a complete understanding of it.
Neil,
Well said.
Long time liberal Democrats like Bill Maher, Elon Musk, James Carville call out the insanity even stupidity that is wokeism, they have compete understanding of it.
Deutschland Erwache. What could possibly go wrong?
+100
Thanks for the link.
My non-legal comment: I can reformulate this case as somewhat less of a “speech” retaliation case (which it is), and more of a “don’t bite the hand that feeds you” case (which also it is).
Florida is clearly retaliating against Disney based on Disney’s exercise of speech critical of the state’s law(s).
But FL is not prohibiting Disney’s speech, nor blocking its continued and pervasive publication. Nor is it revoking Disney’s entity status or right to operate within the state.
So “adjudicatory scrutiny” invites a balancing of Disney’s vs. Florida’s interests at stake:
In recognition of Disney’s value as a major contributor to state revenue and popularity, the state had granted special perquisites (perqs) to Disney.
If the status of Disney’s value to the state begins to decline and causes problems for the state, may the state revoke some of its special perqs to Disney, without prohibiting or restricting Disney’s right to express its opposition to the state/state law?
lin
The problem with that “reformulation” is the status of Disney’s value wasn’t an issue until DeSantis decided to retaliate. The retaliation was the revocation of Disney’s special perks. It was not due to the status of their value because they chose a “woke” position. The states’s own criticism and accusations of “wokeness” is the reason for the questioning of the company’s value. It wasn’t the public that raised the concerns it was the government.
The state chose to punish Disney because they expressed opposition to a policy that affects their employees and their customers. Florida is not prohibiting Disney’s speech, but it is punishing it for exercising it by taking away important perks that allow it to provide the quality of the brand it is famous for. The state is threatening more punishment such as threatening to build a state prison nearby which will devalue their property. The state is using the threat of future punishment to silence future criticism of state policies.
The state already revoked their special status in with the repealing of the reedy creek agreement. That was because Disney criticized DeSantis.
Respectfully, I disagree. Disney’s decline in overall revenues, profits, and value started far previous to Florida’s March 2022 parental rights law and its revocation of certain perquisites. Your statement that “the status of Disney’s value wasn’t an issue until DeSantis decided to retaliate’ is patently false and is proven untrue by many, many independent facts and published accounts.
Of course, I am only allowed two links to publications supporting my position, but you are free to find as many as you want. Thanks anyway.
Here are two links from a year BEFORE the FL/DeSantis’ legislation:
https://www.tampabay.com/opinion/2021/04/26/i-love-disney-world-but-wokeness-is-ruining-the-experience-column/
https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-definitive-timeline-of-disneys-path-to-wokeness (also from 2021)
thanks anyway, from lin.
Lin,
Well said.
How many people read the announcement of another Disney remake with emphasis on wokeism, roll their eyes and say,
“I am not going to see that movie.”
It is somewhat amusing to read the reviews on sites like Rotten Tomatoes, see all the paid bot reviews and then read an actual review by a real person who saw the movie, give it one star and state how it was a two hour lecture on wokeism.
Recently some of the critics got busted for writing rave reviews for money.
Every company had revenue issues during the times you mentioned due to the pandemic. It’s not directly related to the “woke” problem.
Many people complained about the changes Disney implemented on live action adaptations of their animated classics. But that didn’t diminish the value of the company as a whole. Their value is not completely reliant on the portrayal of classic films. They also have the marvel and Star Wars franchises as well as the theme parks.
Disney’s value is being harmed by the state’s attacks for their choices. Why would the state have an interest in what the company chooses to do with regard to wokeness? Those critical of the company are not even in a majority.
Customers are entitled to complain and criticize. The question is why is it the state’s business? All Disney did was criticize a law and the state retaliated by revoking the reedy creek agreement. The retaliation is in violation of the constitutions first amendment. The state’s threat of further retaliation is meant to silence any future criticism of the state. The state is party to the company’s decease in value due to the constant attacks on its views.
This a good indicator of Disney’s value.
https://thewaltdisneycompany.com/app/uploads/2023/08/q3-fy23-earnings.pdf
Park revenue is up 18%. Cruise revenue is up too. Disney+ and Hulu is up. Some revenue was offset by inflation and a charge off from the Star Wars hotel closing.
The whole issue is not affecting the company as much as critics would like to believe.
(my response to you is posted at 3:13, supra.) Not certain why it was not posted here. thanks
People vote with their feet. Disney holdings go further than making movies or running theme parks.
“. . . it is punishing it for exercising it by taking away important perks . . .”
Disney received that special status because of statism. It lost that special status because of statism.
If you don’t like that see-saw, then reject statism.
Regarding Disney’s involvement in state politics, their actions violated basic business principles. They had a universal appeal to people of all walks of life, shapes, colors, beliefs. Why would any business take sides? They gain maximum benefit by staying out of activities that would upset any of their customers. Especially a company like Disney with such a powerful brand equity.
Unfortunately, large investment funds have weighed in on political hot topics as their investors give their money to the funds and the funds own the stock. It is a menacing turn of circumstances and corporations are under pressure to give in to the demands of the fund managers.
We would be better off to break up some of the giant monopolies and encourage small businesses. However, in the mind of the activists, small businesses cannot be as easily controlled.
It is a mess of their own making.
“Why would any business take sides?”
Because the policies DeSantis was pushing for and passed affects their employees. Disney was punished by DeSantis for their audacity of publicly objecting to his “don’t say gay” bill.
DeSantis needed to retaliate against a company who chose to exercise their free speech rights. That’s a direct violation of the 1st amendment. DeSantis seems to be fond of doing that.
Then they should not, as a company, have said anything about the bill.
If they wanted to express their opinion on the law they had every right to. What is wrong is the state retaliating and threatening more retaliatory actions if they didn’t stop. That’s a direct violation of the first amendment.
How did the law directly affect their operations?
Because the policies DeSantis was pushing for and passed affects their employees
Wait, their employees are elementary school children who want to learn about homosexual practices at school?
No. Because the law also affected their employees and their children. It’s an attack about who they are.
Attack about who they are
Could you rephrase? As stated that makes no sense.
Also, if you choose to rephrase, could you give an explanation of why what you’re asserting is true? I’d be more convinced by reasoning than by a bald declaration.
No, it did not.
Point to the part where it would have required their employees or employees’ families to do anything.
Great retort!
E.M.
“It is a mess of their own making.”
Well said.
The professor is ignoring the real issue regarding Disney. DeSantis retaliated against Disney’s opposition to a state law. Dressing up that retaliation as “ensuring uniformity of regulation” is pure balderdash. It was retaliation for Disney’s exercise of their free speech rights. Turley takes great care to avoid the obvious and chooses instead to deflect from the simple truth.
Retaliation for exercising the right to object to a policy shouldn’t require a convoluted and meandering attempt at deflecting from it. That is a prominent theme with governor DeSantis. He seeks punishment for anyone who criticizes him or his policies. His first instinct is to trample on the first’s amendment. The most recent example which Turley opposes is the punishment of student organizations protesting against Israel and supporting the Palestinians.
“Ironically, many liberals who opposed corporate free speech rights in cases like Citizens United are supporting Disney in its claims. “
Those are two very different things. One is about corporations claiming money is free speech vs. being punished for expressing it. Turley must think his readers are too dumb to recognize the distinction.
” The entertainment giant (Disney) attempted to get the state lawsuit dismissed but was unsuccessful. Shortly after the legal victory for the board, Disney dropped four of its five initial claims in its federal lawsuit. The federal lawsuit now only includes one claim: It alleges a violation of First Amendment free speech rights.
Martin Garcia, CFTOD board chairman, said dropping the other four charges proved the charges were “bogus” and a “publicity stunt.” Garcia made the comments at a board meeting earlier this month.
“It is a noteworthy event when lawyers voluntarily dismiss causes of actions against defendants. In doing so, Disney has all but admitted it knew that the federal charges against this board were bogus and, moreover, that the filing of them constituted a publicity stunt, not to mention a repugnant one that took place at the expense of both the integrity of the legal system and of the economic interests of the taxpayers in this district,” Garcia said at the meeting. ”
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/disney-reneged-initial-harsh-promises-response-desantis-moves
The grifting never ends.
Disney was a great place for families but that boat has left the dock. A day at Fl Disney for a family of four requires a personal loan. Instead of “don’t say gay” they should have concentrated on “don’t Pay” a lot when you come to visit the happiest place on earth.
The woke (who don’t buy your products) are driving you broke.
I see it is about ten grand for a family of four for 5 days.
Two grand a day.
Quo vadis Disney (where are you going, Disney)? The trend was evident over 20 years ago. Back then it was New Age, crystals, PC, diversity, weak fathers, and anti-military:
https://decentfilms.com/articles/quovadisdisney
You can see the company has not reversed course, but has continued down the same path to points west, most notably, wokeville. I don’t believe wokeville is the end of the line, and it will continue in the same direction. Perhaps the next stop is antisemitism.
Did you forget hating the white Christian male ? That ride never ends, nor is it forbidden, even by the jews and those who scream anti semite constantly.
It is kinda fun to watch people step on rakes. More so when they keep doing it over and over again.
Hollywood, Disney, et al needs to get back to the basics of a good plot, good writing, good direction, good editing and good actors then pandering preaching wokeness.
Upstate,
Good analogy!! I once stepped on rake with full force. That was not fun. I learned not to do that again.
MARCH 20th, 2019
(Reuters) – Walt Disney Co closed its $71 billion acquisition of Twenty-First Century Fox Inc’s film and television assets
Fox’s X-Men, “Avatar” and “The Simpsons” , etc
Separately, Fox Corp debuted on the Nasdaq on Tuesday and named former U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan, Formula One Group Chief Executive Officer Chase Carey and two others to its board.
Fox News Channel and Fox Broadcast Network, is expected to bring in around $10 billion in annual revenue.
The Left does not create; it only corrupts.
@Cionnath
That’s for damn sure, at least for the woke, and it’s universal across industries. They are an unmitigated disaster, and it’s great to see the pushback. It’s the only thing that’ll work, neither brainwashing nor narcissism – the two core tenets of modern leftism – respond to dialogue or respect for others.
Princess Rachel Zegler declares, as she rides the Goofy corporation to MediocrityLand, “we have to be fearless and loud in order to be heard, and to prepare for the backlash that occasionally comes with that outspokenness.”
And the supportive CEO of MediocrityLand, Bob Iger (Mr. Oldhat himself) adopts a line from Alice(?): ‘to prove a point that is not a point with somebody else’s money’. (aka: we got woke and we go broke with YOUR money)
“MediocrityLand”
If only.
It’s on a lower rung: DestructionLand.
Walt Disney spent his life protecting the innocence of children. The loathsome people running the business now are devoting their lives to invading the innocence of children.
Edwardmahl,
Well said.
“. . . Prince Charming a presumptive ‘stalker’ and promising to ditch the whole love interest.”
If you need any more evidence of the culture’s nihilism, there it is. Those nihilists are like drunken, drive-by shooters: We’ve riddled that Western value with bullets. What’s next?
“. . . has already cost the corporation dearly.”
When will those Woke companies learn that the Bud Light fiasco is a warning, not a blueprint?
To be ‘fair’ there is an argument that the ‘actors’ were stand ins for the CGI dwarfs.
When you have actors who are not A listers in terms of acting… its hard to get them to focus on a mark as if the CGI creature is in the room.
So you have a body usually in a ‘green sock’ so that they can be removed in editing as a way to allow the actor to focus and pretend that there is a creature in the room. (otherwise it tends to look like a ghost is there and they cant see it.)
That said… the photos and the ‘diverse’ characters kinda blows that away. They were digitally removed. (Yes the technology has gone beyond the green suits where you can remove or even lift and duplicate a character even on your expensive high end home PC. )
While I have to give some credence to Disney’s spin because it could be viewed as plausible… I seriously doubt that to be the case.
There’s plenty of evidence that this is merely spin control because they couldn’t face another bomb
Disney acquired preferred status because it pleased the children and their parents and we never heard a complaint.
Since they now have decided changing the entire society instead of fitting in, is great, even with massive complaints heard from the often widely silenced, they lose their preferred status.
Instead, the crooked corporation wants it both ways. A lot us knew Disney was destroyed many, many years ago.
Should a state be permitted to strip a company of special privileges because that company uses its resources to oppose and challenge a new state law? No state is required to maintain a company’s special privileges, but the question here is whether a state can remove them because the company opposes and challenges the state’s law. I would say yes, because the special privileges increase the resources available to the company and thus specially empower the company’s opposition. This would be true regardless of whether the company’s opposition comes from the right or the left. But the question is a close one, and I don’t think the Professor has expressed a view on it.
Should a state be allowed to give a company special privileges ? If so, what conditions must be met ?
How is it legal for a state to do so ?
If we only ask about the taking away, it isn’t clear how the giving happened to begin with, and if it should ever be in place, and how it is legal or how it was justified under a bunch of blabbering idiocy and excuses.
I believe the special privileges were granted by the state decades ago to attract jobs and promote economic development. I am not aware of any legal challenges to this kind of thing, which is not uncommon, though the details of the privileges here were unusual.
The 1A question here is difficult, and I’m not sure how it will end up. Again, I don’t believe the Professor has expressed a view.
“attract jobs and promote economic development.”
Florida population 1967 ~6,000,000,000
Today it has the third largest state population
Many theme parks have opened up and today it is unfair for those theme parks to compete with the Reedy Creak deal. It should have ended decades ago.
What if the company is minority or women owned? Can those get special privileges?
“Should a state be permitted to strip a company of special privileges because that company uses its resources to oppose and challenge a new state law?”
All the company did was express opposition to a law. Stripping it of special privileges because it expressed opposition to a law is a direct violation of Disney’s first amendment rights.
The state illegally retaliated against the company because it didn’t like the criticism. Removing the special privileges is retaliatory in its intent. It’s an unconstitutional action by the state. It stifles future free speech under the threat of further punishment (retaliation).
The company also threatened to use its resources to challenge the law.
Disney should not have opposed a law that was none of its business.
Disney was also embroiled in issues with employees and pedophilia and it’s employees making a mockery of the family vacation at Disney, protesting and lurid displays on disney entrance properties, etc..
Corporations are discovering the MUST stay in their lane. If I’m going to spend $20 K on replacement windows, I’ll kick the salesman out of my house if he explains all the woke crap the company participates in. I’m buying window, not attending a rally. Corporations work for the people paying their salary, the share holders.
Disney stopped making movies to entertain, and instead decided to lecture. Guess how 6 year olds get to the theater? Their grandparents take them. Ignoring who your customers are, gets Disney, and Bud light results.
On a side note INBEV is going to re-imburse stock holders for their foray into woke idiocy. Bud lights problem was not marketing to a sup group (extremely small sub group By denigrating and insulting the core base of customers. Men. The Men said fine, the shelves are full of brands to choose from. Bud light did not support trans. Budlight declared they were moving on from the icky Frat Boy image and replacing them with she-males.
And actors are learning all we want from them is to read their lines. I’m much more interested in the opinion of the car wash guy than a pretty face on the screen,
We used to go to movies 5 to 6 times a month. We haven’t been in a theater 6 times in the last 4 years. There is nothing to watch. Until Hollywood starts entertaining and quit lecturing, I just dont view the crap.
“Corporations work for the people paying their salary, the share holders. ”
What ? The whole point of a shareholder is to pay nothing, to in fact extract money from the company and the wider public. To MAKE A SALARY WHILE NOT LIFTING A FINGER.
Apparently you have never heard of equity, capital and debt — you know, the stuff of which movies are made.
Apparently you have never heard of an IPO, making money on stocks, investment, buying stocks, etc.
The whole point is to take out a lot more than you put in. Your stock purchase doesn’t pay salaries, the company HAS TO SELL SOMETHING OR IT GOES BROKE QUICKLY.
Interesting. I own 1.5 corporations and I have to bust my ass to make salary. Please tell me of these corporations that enable me not to lift a finger. Why doesn’t everyone get one or two of those corporations?
Now, I have seen generations of people not lift a finger and get food, clothing, shelter, health care, education, etc. but they don’t have corporations
WTF ?
shareholders, not owners, or majority equity investors also OWNERS in many cases
The whole thing is a paper money pump for shareholders, and the company HAS TO SELL TO CONSUMERS
Shareholders do not pay wages or salaries.
They WANT WAGES aka dividends and stock increases. THEY ARE TAKERS. OR LOSERS.
Salaries and wages are paid by SALES of the corporations.
Inflated, bloated stock pricing, can be taken advantage of to extract money – by shareholders.
Well said. Well said…..
Your analogy is flawed. You can kick the salesman out of your house because you’re a private citizen. Disney got punished as retaliation for expressing an opinion (opposition) about a state law. The constitution prohibits the state from retaliating over criticism. You as a private individual are not bound by the limitations of the first amendment.
Shareholders also support Disney’s decision. How many shareholders have threatened to withdraw their money? Apparently not enough to change their mind. They like reliable investment instead of short term offense.
Disney deserves every bit of grief it has collected. It had grown so powerful it was arrogant and thought it could move among the peons like a Tyrannosaurus Rex and take no heed of the people who paid to go to it’s movies or theme parks, or bought it’s merchandise or hooked up to it’s streaming service until they didn’t. They face an investor coup and so be it. Never take your eye off of what you are, otherwise you end up flat of your face on the ground or worse.
Don’t knock off politicians until they are truly dead. Just remember inevitable choices like Edmund Muskie (remember him) or the dead Richard Nixon after the California Governors race in 1962 (You won’t have Nixon to kick around anymore). Politics is a strange game. And some politicians win elections even when they are truly dead.
When one sleeps with whores don’t bemoan the STD’s.
It’s all make believe. Who cares?
When a corporation goes woke it’s easy to say “go woke, go broke, but when the government body as a whole (not just the elected few) goes woke what do you say then?
@Anonymous: RE:”when the government body as a whole (not just the elected few) goes woke what do you say then?” On Election Day…;You’re fired’, and hope that the majority of the ‘Board of Electorates’ votes ‘Yes”. The rest should follow.
We say, “you are bankrupting every one of us! Cut it the heck out!” And then vote for any candidate with a record of fiscal responsibility who doesn’t give a flying **** about woke.
It’s all over, game, set, match except for the crying