Posted on 12/12/2023 11:59:37 AM PST by Jacquerie
Disney’s Argument: The House of Mouse argues that the restructuring was a targeted attack on its free speech rights, constituting a clear case of governmental retaliation for expressing views contrary to those held by the state’s leadership. The entertainment company contends that this not only violates the First Amendment’s protection against viewpoint discrimination but also sets a dangerous precedent where businesses could be punished for their political expressions.
Florida’s Counterargument: The State of Florida, defending its legislative action, argues that the restructuring of the Reedy Creek Improvement District does not infringe upon Disney’s First Amendment rights. It asserts that the laws in question were not exclusively aimed at Disney, but also affected other entities, including other special districts and businesses other than Disney operating inside the former Reedy Creek Improvement District. Therefore, the state claims, the law does not constitute a specific attack on Disney’s free speech. The state maintains that the legislature’s move is an exercise of its sovereign power to structure and manage governmental entities as it sees fit, a right reserved under the Constitution.
(Excerpt) Read more at thecapitolist.com ...
It can restructure Disney's governing authority at-will.
Besides that, corporations like Disney are all for removing the right of free speech for those who disagree with them, by supporting the whole woke movement to begin with.
Rule #1: Corporations have First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court’s first decision protecting individuals’ free expression rights came in 1931. Its first decision protecting a corporation’s free expression rights came just five years later, in 1936. That decision involved a newspaper corporation; but the Court’s first decision protecting a nonmedia business corporation’s free expression rights came five years after that, in 1941. From the 1950s onwards, many Court decisions protected for-profit corporations. Indeed, the very first American court decision striking down a state statute on free speech grounds took place in 1894, and it protected the rights of a corporation.
When the Supreme Court split sharply over corporate speech in the 2010 Citizens United case, no-one doubted that the First Amendment protects corporations generally; the question was whether there was an exception for corporate speech supporting or opposing political candidates.
Why is this so? Partly because corporations are, after all, made up of people. If the government takes a corporation’s property, that doesn’t hurt the “corporation” in some abstract sense—it hurts the corporation’s stockholders. If the government stops The New York Times Co. from criticizing the President, that restricts the First Amendment rights of editors at The New York Times.
Rule #2: The media doesn’t have any greater First Amendment rights than other speakers. The “freedom of the press” isn’t the freedom of a business category called “the press.” It has been understood, since the 1700s, as the freedom of all to use the printing press (and its technological heirs). There are some statutes that give institutional media special additional rights beyond what the First Amendment gives them—but the Constitution doesn’t distinguish reporters from bloggers, or media businesses from other businesses.
This means that the First Amendment protects General Motors and Walmart as much as it protects The New York Times or CNN or The New Republic. If GM’s corporate speech could be restricted, then the New York Times’ speech could be, too. And because The New York Times’ speech can’t be restricted, then neither can GM’s.
Sorry. Not true. There are rules and statutes that must be obeyed.
I stand corrected, thanks for educating me. 🙂
First amendment rights are not really involved. Disney had benefits it no longer needed
Not sure what you’re getting at.
FL didn’t restrict Disney’s free speech.
Please leave Florida. Go to NY or CA.
The actions against Disney were a reaction to political speech and were poorly planned & executed. Because of the statements DeSantis made about why he made these changes
there has been tremendous legal cost.
The residents are unhappy about the change and are clamoring to go back to the prior arrangement.
There are a lot of issues and inconsistencies.
https://www.thestreet.com/travel/desantis-disney-woke-war-gives-universal-studios-a-big-edge
All of this would have been avoided if the whores in the Fl legislature had not given Disney special sovereignty that other corporations don’t enjoy. And should not.
I was living in Florida when Disney moved in and the special privileges and powers granted Disney did not go unnoticed. But government greed was, as always, the order of the day.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.