Republicans vs Disney Free Speech

[CivilDiscourse]

Source: https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/disney-reedy-creek-improvement-act

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and some Republican state legislators have floated the idea of repealing the Reedy Creek Improvement Act (RCIA) amid the Sunshine State's ongoing feud with Disney.

...

Discussions about repealing the Reedy Creek Improvement Act have come in response to Disney's opposition to the Parental Rights in Education bill, commonly referred to by critics as the ‘Don’t Say Gay' bill.

The bill, which is slated to go into effect on July 1, prohibits Florida educators from teaching about sexual orientation or gender identity in kindergarten through third grade, with a provision that enables parents to sue if they allege schools or instructors have been in violation.

© Copyright Original Source

This is a classic case of retaliation over speech. Florida passed it's law, and Disney has publicly stated opposition to it. In retaliation, Desantis and other republicans are now floating the idea of revoking Disney's special privileges in retaliation. Point blank. This is 100% absolutely wrong, and is, in my opinion, a BLATANT violation of the 1st amendment. The government is taking direct negative actions in order to punish someone (Disney) for their public stance. I anticipate that the defense of this action will be that this isn't a punishment, it's merely getting rid of privileges. But, that doesn't matter. What matters is that this is a negative action, and that it is in direct retribution for the speech of the company.

Now whether you agree with the law or not, agree disney or not, or even agree with the wisdom (or not) of disney stating that position, if you are an advocate of free speech, you should condemn this threat/attempt at punishment for the violation of free speech that it is.

[rogue06]

Source: https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/disney-reedy-creek-improvement-act

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and some Republican state legislators have floated the idea of repealing the Reedy Creek Improvement Act (RCIA) amid the Sunshine State's ongoing feud with Disney.

...

Discussions about repealing the Reedy Creek Improvement Act have come in response to Disney's opposition to the Parental Rights in Education bill, commonly referred to by critics as the ‘Don’t Say Gay' bill.

The bill, which is slated to go into effect on July 1, prohibits Florida educators from teaching about sexual orientation or gender identity in kindergarten through third grade, with a provision that enables parents to sue if they allege schools or instructors have been in violation.

© Copyright Original Source

This is a classic case of retaliation over speech. Florida passed it's law, and Disney has publicly stated opposition to it. In retaliation, Desantis and other republicans are now floating the idea of revoking Disney's special privileges in retaliation. Point blank. This is 100% absolutely wrong, and is, in my opinion, a BLATANT violation of the 1st amendment. The government is taking direct negative actions in order to punish someone (Disney) for their public stance. I anticipate that the defense of this action will be that this isn't a punishment, it's merely getting rid of privileges. But, that doesn't matter. What matters is that this is a negative action, and that it is in direct retribution for the speech of the company.

Now whether you agree with the law or not, agree disney or not, or even agree with the wisdom (or not) of disney stating that position, if you are an advocate of free speech, you should condemn this threat/attempt at punishment for the violation of free speech that it is.

Similar to here in Georgia where lawmakers threatened to take away some sweetheart tax deals for Coke and Delta when they jumped on the boycott bandwagon (which they and other corporations quietly slinked away from when they realized that once again the left lied).

The government shouldn't be trying to suppress anyone's speech like this (although many on the left adamantly argue that corporations should not be afford constitutional protections), whether by threatening to remove beneficial tax laws, straight-out threaten to raise their taxes, seize their banking accounts or whatever.

[CivilDiscourse]

Similar to here in Georgia where lawmakers threatened to take away some sweetheart tax deals for Coke and Delta when they jumped on the boycott bandwagon (which they and other corporations quietly slinked away from when they realized that once again the left lied).

The government shouldn't be trying to suppress anyone's speech like this (although many on the left adamantly argue that corporations should not be afford constitutional protections), whether by threatening to remove beneficial tax laws, straight-out threaten to raise their taxes, seize their banking accounts or whatever.

Well, democrats have flip-flopped on that. Now they claim that corporations are entirely within their rights of free speech in choosing what speech to suppress and which to allow.

[Gondwanaland]

Source: https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/disney-reedy-creek-improvement-act

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and some Republican state legislators have floated the idea of repealing the Reedy Creek Improvement Act (RCIA) amid the Sunshine State's ongoing feud with Disney.

...

Discussions about repealing the Reedy Creek Improvement Act have come in response to Disney's opposition to the Parental Rights in Education bill, commonly referred to by critics as the ‘Don’t Say Gay' bill.

The bill, which is slated to go into effect on July 1, prohibits Florida educators from teaching about sexual orientation or gender identity in kindergarten through third grade, with a provision that enables parents to sue if they allege schools or instructors have been in violation.

© Copyright Original Source

This is a classic case of retaliation over speech. Florida passed it's law, and Disney has publicly stated opposition to it. In retaliation, Desantis and other republicans are now floating the idea of revoking Disney's special privileges in retaliation. Point blank. This is 100% absolutely wrong, and is, in my opinion, a BLATANT violation of the 1st amendment. The government is taking direct negative actions in order to punish someone (Disney) for their public stance. I anticipate that the defense of this action will be that this isn't a punishment, it's merely getting rid of privileges. But, that doesn't matter. What matters is that this is a negative action, and that it is in direct retribution for the speech of the company.

Now whether you agree with the law or not, agree disney or not, or even agree with the wisdom (or not) of disney stating that position, if you are an advocate of free speech, you should condemn this threat/attempt at punishment for the violation of free speech that it is.

Agreed 100%.

And the conservatives who I've seen cheerleading this on Twitter are the same ones mad about 'cancel culture' (which, this is a conservative government version of that), Twitter and free speech, etc., etc.. They're no different than liberals in trying to have their cake and eat it too.

[seer]

Source: https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/disney-reedy-creek-improvement-act

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and some Republican state legislators have floated the idea of repealing the Reedy Creek Improvement Act (RCIA) amid the Sunshine State's ongoing feud with Disney.

...

Discussions about repealing the Reedy Creek Improvement Act have come in response to Disney's opposition to the Parental Rights in Education bill, commonly referred to by critics as the ‘Don’t Say Gay' bill.

The bill, which is slated to go into effect on July 1, prohibits Florida educators from teaching about sexual orientation or gender identity in kindergarten through third grade, with a provision that enables parents to sue if they allege schools or instructors have been in violation.

© Copyright Original Source

This is a classic case of retaliation over speech. Florida passed it's law, and Disney has publicly stated opposition to it. In retaliation, Desantis and other republicans are now floating the idea of revoking Disney's special privileges in retaliation. Point blank. This is 100% absolutely wrong, and is, in my opinion, a BLATANT violation of the 1st amendment. The government is taking direct negative actions in order to punish someone (Disney) for their public stance. I anticipate that the defense of this action will be that this isn't a punishment, it's merely getting rid of privileges. But, that doesn't matter. What matters is that this is a negative action, and that it is in direct retribution for the speech of the company.

Now whether you agree with the law or not, agree disney or not, or even agree with the wisdom (or not) of disney stating that position, if you are an advocate of free speech, you should condemn this threat/attempt at punishment for the violation of free speech that it is.

Why is Disney getting special privileges in the first place? But I have a different take on this. This is at bottom about state control of our children. Using the school system to indoctrinate our children into leftist ideology. And as far as I'm concerned all measures are on the table, including punishing those companies who support this nonsense. It is the hill to die on...

[seer]

Agreed 100%.

And the conservatives who I've seen cheerleading this on Twitter are the same ones mad about 'cancel culture' (which, this is a conservative government version of that), Twitter and free speech, etc., etc.. They're no different than liberals in trying to have their cake and eat it too.

No one can cancel Disney, cancel culture is more about cancelling individuals...

[CivilDiscourse]

Why is Disney getting special privileges in the first place?

In general its a valid question. But, taking it away because you don't like their speech is still a 1A violation.

But I have a different take on this. This is at bottom about state control of our children. Using the school system to indoctrinate our children into leftist ideology. And as far as I'm concerned all measures are on the table, including punishing those companies who support this nonsense. It is the hill to die on...

So, you are ok squashing free speech over this. Why not arrest people who publicly oppose the law?

[seer]

In general its a valid question. But, taking it away because you don't like their speech is still a 1A violation.

Err no it is not. Losing those SPECIAL privileges doesn't stop Disney from saying or doing what they want. They are just getting less SPECIAL consideration from the state. You know, like everybody else...

So, you are ok squashing free speech over this. Why not arrest people who publicly oppose the law?

But they are not 'squashing' free speech. And in the big picture I have no problem using the law against those who are trying to pervert our children.

[CivilDiscourse]

Err no it is not. Losing those SPECIAL privileges doesn't stop Disney from saying or doing what they want. They are just getting less SPECIAL consideration from the state. You know, like everybody else...

I anticipated this response and covered it in my op.

But they are not 'squashing' free speech. And in the big picture I have no problem using the law against those who are trying to pervert our children.

they are. They are punishing someone for their speech.

Point blank, you are anti free speech.

[rogue06]

Why is Disney getting special privileges in the first place? But I have a different take on this. This is at bottom about state control of our children. Using the school system to indoctrinate our children into leftist ideology. And as far as I'm concerned all measures are on the table, including punishing those companies who support this nonsense. It is the hill to die on...

There will always be a "reason" to use the power of the government to punish those they disagree with and it will always be an important one. I'd bet that many of those who complain about this would turn around next week and offer full-throated support of a measure that is designed to punish a company that backs a pro-Life stance (do you remember how some jurisdictions tried to prevent Chick-Fil-A from opening a restaurant?). But it is a practice that neither side should engage in.

And I wholeheartedly agree this (what's going on in Florida) is a battle worth fighting for. Who could possibly be against prohibiting adults from promoting their sexual preferences to a bunch of children who's ages consist of a single digit? I mean what sort of person would even want to do that in the first place? And if you are threatening to quit because of it, then it at least the law has served the purpose of identifying those who need to be kept closely monitored if not replaced.

[seer]

I anticipated this response and covered it in my op.

Again, exactly how does taking away SPECIAL privileges prevent Disney from saying what they want - be specific.

Point blank, you are anti free speech.

Yes, I'm against harming children - I guess you are not...

[tabibito]

There will always be a "reason" to use the power of the government to punish those they disagree with and it will always be an important one. I'd bet that many of those who complain about this would turn around next week and offer full-throated support of a measure that is designed to punish a company that backs a pro-Life stance (do you remember how some jurisdictions tried to prevent Chick-Fil-A from opening a restaurant?). But it is a practice that neither side should engage in.

And I wholeheartedly agree this (what's going on in Florida) is a battle worth fighting for. Who could possibly be against prohibiting adults from promoting their sexual preferences to a bunch of children who's ages consist of a single digit? I mean what sort of person would even want to do that in the first place? And if you are threatening to quit because of it, then it at least the law has served the purpose of identifying those who need to be kept closely monitored if not replaced.

Is Disney actually claiming that the government is banning sex education in schools? or acknowledging that the ban is in place for early primary schoolers? If the former, perhaps a case could be made for slander? I don't know of anyone who calls slander protected free speech.

[seer]

There will always be a "reason" to use the power of the government to punish those they disagree with and it will always be an important one. I'd bet that many of those who complain about this would turn around next week and offer full-throated support of a measure that is designed to punish a company that backs a pro-Life stance (do you remember how some jurisdictions tried to prevent Chick-Fil-A from opening a restaurant?). But it is a practice that neither side should engage in.

I'm not saying that Disney should not be able to expand. I'm saying that if they keep wanting to harm children and undermine parental control they should lose their SPECIAL privileges. Why should the state support those privileges?

[rogue06]

Is Disney actually claiming that the government is banning sex education in schools? or acknowledging that the ban is in place for early primary schoolers? If the former, perhaps a case could be made for slander? I don't know of anyone who calls slander protected free speech.

I'm not sure, largely because of how the MSM has taken great pains to misrepresent that law in every imaginable way (even the name they call it), which means that Disney may not really know.

Again, I'll cite all of the major corporations that eagerly hopped aboard the boycott bandwagon here in Georgia after the MSM repeatedly lied about the Georgia voting law (and then very quietly dropped support and slinked away when they realized they had bought into a load of bovine scat not even remotely true).

[rogue06]

I'm not saying that Disney should not be able to expand. I'm saying that if they keep wanting to harm children and undermine parental control they should lose their SPECIAL privileges. Why should the state support those privileges?

States offer sweetheart deals to get a large company to move in. Typically the state gains way more from the taxes of the new employees than they give up. Do you remember how A.O.C. was so pleased with herself for stopping Amazon from moving into her area because she opposed the deal the state was offering? She didn't understand that considering the number of people they would hire that the special deal was nothing but a drop in the bucket. It's kind of like priming the pump of an old water pump.