aggiehawg said:

---

Less than 10 minute stream. Legal Mindset now lives in SE Asia but practiced for long time in Florida and dealt with Reedy.

---

This attorney is a partisan hack with a longstanding grudge against Disney.

Here is the reality to quote a longterm friend who teaches at UCF:

"The case that it was DeSantis's retaliation in response to protected speech is rock solid. There's no way that the state can get around that part because of all the public statements DeSantis and legislators have made [including what Republican state representative Randy Fine said when he introduced the bill to dissolve the special district: "This bill does target one company: it targets the Walt Disney Company"] and the timing, and a million other things. The governor and the legislature put in bright lights, they lit it up in a billboard, saying this is retaliation and retaliation specifically for protected speech, which is prohibited under the First Amendment".

How did they retaliate against Disney?

Quote:

---

"The case that it was DeSantis's retaliation in response to protected speech is rock solid. There's no way that the state can get around that part because of all the public statements DeSantis and legislators have made [including what Republican state representative Randy Fine said when he introduced the bill to dissolve the special district: "This bill does target one company: it targets the Walt Disney Company"] and the timing, and a million other things. The governor and the legislature put in bright lights, they lit it up in a billboard, saying this is retaliation and retaliation specifically for protected speech, which is prohibited under the First Amendment".

---

Where does this fantasy come from? How did we get to a point where a law is constitutional or not based on previous statements of legislators or what some judge thinks is a nefarious intention? What a ridiculous standard if upheld. Of course the law only affects Disney, it's the only entity with a special set aside. I'm not a lawyer so can one chime in that isn't a lib prof at UCF.

So if you express a dislike for Disney, and then pass a law that Disney deems harmful the law becomes unconstitutional?

Quote:

---

"The case that it was DeSantis's retaliation in response to protected speech is rock solid. There's no way that the state can get around that part because of all the public statements DeSantis and legislators have made [including what Republican state representative Randy Fine said when he introduced the bill to dissolve the special district: "This bill does target one company: it targets the Walt Disney Company"] and the timing, and a million other things. The governor and the legislature put in bright lights, they lit it up in a billboard, saying this is retaliation and retaliation specifically for protected speech, which is prohibited under the First Amendment".

---

Shiny object but not the heart of the actual dispute.

Disney did not have a local law and development agreement specialist advising them. Further, the General Counsel for Disney was also the attorney for Reedy Creek. Classic alter ego, situation. Other issues point to the Reedy Creek agreement being void ab initio under state law, the federal Disney suit fails as a result.

Might want to follow the granted not-so-sexy laws of the state as laid out here.

Hypocrite Hunter said:

---

Yeah, your "friend" doesn't sound partisan at all….

---

And is make believe.

I don't know why you can't see how weak of an angle this is. If I have a government co tract and put out some racist tweets, I'll have my contract pulled. Totally legal and fair. What's not legal and fair is specifically targeting me with the IRS or the DOJ.

Florida is pulling a government contract. This is allowed.

The Banned said:

---

I don't know why you can't see how weak of an angle this is. If I have a government co tract and put out some racist tweets, I'll have my contract pulled. Totally legal and fair. What's not legal and fair is specifically targeting me with the IRS or the DOJ.

Florida is pulling a government contract. This is allowed.

---

Further, it is standard under Florida law is that when these special districts run across county lines, as Disney's Reedy Creek does, the Governor has the authority to appoint the Board.

Also governmental authority cannot be delegated to a private entity. Disney does not get to ignore bulding and safety codes, for instance. Restrictive covenants are not binding on state government entities.

Think of the millions of HOAs in Florida. Think they have the power to tell a municipality they can't build a fire or police station? Nope, they do not.

DeSantis was reelected by a record 20 point margin even AFTER he started this war with Disney. Obviously the people of Florida are okay with it. Besides, Disney has very profitable parks in Florida and will still have those parks in Florida when this is all over, with or without the special privileges.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

"The case that it was DeSantis's retaliation in response to protected speech is rock solid. There's no way that the state can get around that part because of all the public statements DeSantis and legislators have made [including what Republican state representative Randy Fine said when he introduced the bill to dissolve the special district: "This bill does target one company: it targets the Walt Disney Company"] and the timing, and a million other things. The governor and the legislature put in bright lights, they lit it up in a billboard, saying this is retaliation and retaliation specifically for protected speech, which is prohibited under the First Amendment".

---

Shiny object but not the heart of the actual dispute.

Disney did not have a local law and development agreement specialist advising them. Further, the General Counsel for Disney was also the attorney for Reedy Creek. Classic alter ego, situation. Other issues point to the Reedy Creek agreement being void ab initio under state law, the federal Disney suit fails as a result.

Might want to follow the granted not-so-sexy laws of the state as laid out here.

---

Can a state retaliate by creating taxes because of speech?

Disney has a legit case that Florida is retaliating due to their stance on the don't say gay deal.

I can't say if that I'd legal or not, so I'm asking.

This is exactly what is occurring. Disney criticized the Dont Say Gay law. DeSantis retaliated against them and used the full force of the executive office in Florida to do so.

akm91 said:

---

Bill Clinternet said:

---

This is exactly what is occurring. Disney criticized the Dont Say Gay law. DeSantis retaliated against them and used the full force of the executive office in Florida to do so.

---

No he didn't, stop lying.

---

DeSantis is indeed retaliating against Disney for exercising their First Amendment rights. It would be wise to educate yourself before making asinine accusations and speaking in a duplicitous manner about a subject you have failed to review.

DeSantis CLEARLY states he retaliated against Disney in his recently published memoir.

Numerous quotes taken from "The Courage to Be Free" appear to support Disney's central allegation: that DeSantis improperly wielded state power to punish Disney's speech criticizing his policies, violating the First Amendment.

To quote the Washington Post:

• DeSantis's book brags about his rapid mobilization of the state legislature to target Disney's tax district. The same passage declares that this happened because of the company's "support of indoctrinating young schoolchildren in woke gender identity politics." That admits to retribution against speech opposing his legislation.
• The book rips Disney for vowing to work to repeal the governor's law, describing this as "a frontal assault" on it. That, too, is a description of political speech. Yet the book menacingly declares that, after this, "things got worse for Disney," and that it would "soon find out" the truth about Florida's war with Disney, i.e., the state would punish that speech.
• The book describes DeSantis's discussions with Republicans in the Florida legislature about whether they were prepared to tackle the "thorny issue involving the state's most powerful company." That confirms Disney was the unique target of legislative action.
• In a companion to the book's launch, DeSantis wrote a Wall Street Journal op-ed that explicitly discussed governmental actions against Disney as an effort to "fight back" against its "woke ideology," which is to say, its political speech.

Quote:

---

Can a state retaliate by creating taxes because of speech?

Disney has a legit case that Florida is retaliating due to their stance on the don't say gay deal.

I can't say if that I'd legal or not, so I'm asking.

---

That is not what is really happening here. Spin on the narrative but mostly just spin. Andrew lays out the various bond issues and how those have certain cause and effects if not done correctly and precisely according to statute.

There is a vast difference between two private entities contracting and a govenrment agency entering a statutorily defined contract. Every single t and i have to be crossed and dotted per the applicable statutes. And bonds is one of the most strictly construed of those statutory schemes.

Disney does not a legit case based upon constitutional issues, that's window dressing for popular consumption.

Quote:

---

That is not what is really happening here.

---

Not what I asked. Don't want to argue that. I contend that when the state publicly says they are going after Disney due to their stance on the don't say gay, then that's what they are doing. But, that's certainly debatable.

I just want to know from a lawyer if a State can implement a retaliatory punishment on a private business because the business publicly states opposition to legislation.

Bill Clinternet said:

---

This is exactly what is occurring. Disney criticized the Dont Say Gay law. DeSantis retaliated against them and used the full force of the executive office in Florida to do so.

---

"Don't Say Gay law". Disingenuous at best, but most leftist arguments of the right's position are just that.

There is a difference between purely punitive actions like saying "we are going to levy an additional 1% tax on all Disney profits" and actions that level the playing field (i.e. "We are going to go back to treating Disney exactly like every other amusement park in Florida"). One is a punitive action that would clearly target just one business for unequal treatment in the eyes of the law. The other is an action that simply treats Disney exactly like everybody else, without special perks they were granted 50+ years ago. Unless I am mistaken in my memory, the legislation that dissolved Reedy Creek also dissolved several other similar districts, so it didn't "just target disney".

Science Denier said:

---

Quote:

---

That is not what is really happening here.

---

Not what I asked. Don't want to argue that. I contend that when the state publicly says they are going after Disney due to their stance on the don't say gay, then that's what they are doing. But, that's certainly debatable.

I just want to know from a lawyer if a State can implement a retaliatory punishment on a private business because the business publicly states opposition to legislation.

---

IANAL, but they are not putting a punitive action on Disney that treats them unequally from other businesses. They are taking away a perk that previously treated Disney unequally to other similar businesses. It is a subtle difference, but I think it is an important one. Disney can't say they are being discriminated against when the effect of the law is to cause them to be treated exactly like every other business.

Quote:

---

They are taking away a perk that previously treated Disney unequally to other similar businesses.

---

Yes. But it was a perk they had for decades. It's not just random they decided to try to take it away. It's not that they've had a perk for a long time and now it's time to take it away.

It's stated by both the governor and legislature it's due to their stance on the don't say gay thing. I'm no lawyer, but when the government says they are punishing you to the entire world, seems pretty easy to prove the motive for removal is punishment.

Quote:

---

I just want to know from a lawyer if a State can implement a retaliatory punishment on a private business because the business publicly states opposition to legislation.

---

Sure they can but using the words "punishment" and "retaliatory" is a misnomer when legislation was dutifully drafted, passed and signed into law.

Disney tried to lobby hard against it and lost that argument. And their lawsuit against the state is more emotionally driven than legally sound as were those last minute agreements they passed on their way out of the door.

But when the state court strikes down those last minute agreements as void, the legs are cut out from under Disney's federal suit.

Quote:

---

Sure they can

---

Ok, thanks. Then it doesn't matter if they are being punished or not.

Science Denier said:

---

Quote:

---

They are taking away a perk that previously treated Disney unequally to other similar businesses.

---

Yes. But it was a perk they had for decades. It's not just random they decided to try to take it away. It's not that they've had a perk for a long time and now it's time to take it away.

It's stated by both the governor and legislature it's due to their stance on the don't say gay thing. I'm no lawyer, but when the government says they are punishing you to the entire world, seems pretty easy to prove the motive for removal is punishment.

---

The law doesnt care if you "punished" them or "retaliated" against them for some reason. The law cares if they were treated unequally. If they were singled out for treatment that punished them in a way that other similar businesses are not also punished, they have a case. If the "punishment" is to treat them equally, they are going to have a hard time proving the state did anything wrong.

Science Denier said:

---

Quote:

---

Sure they can

---

Ok, thanks. Then it doesn't matter if they are being punished or not.

---

Disney is not being treated disparately in comparison to other Florida theme parks after this was done.

They were being treated disparately than other theme parks before this was done. They were privileged. Revocation of a privileged status is not the same as being denied a right.

txags92 said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Quote:

---

They are taking away a perk that previously treated Disney unequally to other similar businesses.

---

Yes. But it was a perk they had for decades. It's not just random they decided to try to take it away. It's not that they've had a perk for a long time and now it's time to take it away.

It's stated by both the governor and legislature it's due to their stance on the don't say gay thing. I'm no lawyer, but when the government says they are punishing you to the entire world, seems pretty easy to prove the motive for removal is punishment.

---

The law doesnt care if you "punished" them or "retaliated" against them for some reason. The law cares if they were treated unequally. If they were singled out for treatment that punished them in a way that other similar businesses are not also punished, they have a case. If the "punishment" is to treat them equally, they are going to have a hard time proving the state did anything wrong.

---

Ok, thanks. Surprised Disney didn't force the state to enter a contract.

Science Denier said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Quote:

---

They are taking away a perk that previously treated Disney unequally to other similar businesses.

---

Yes. But it was a perk they had for decades. It's not just random they decided to try to take it away. It's not that they've had a perk for a long time and now it's time to take it away.

It's stated by both the governor and legislature it's due to their stance on the don't say gay thing. I'm no lawyer, but when the government says they are punishing you to the entire world, seems pretty easy to prove the motive for removal is punishment.

---

The law doesnt care if you "punished" them or "retaliated" against them for some reason. The law cares if they were treated unequally. If they were singled out for treatment that punished them in a way that other similar businesses are not also punished, they have a case. If the "punishment" is to treat them equally, they are going to have a hard time proving the state did anything wrong.

---

Ok, thanks. Surprised Disney didn't force the state to enter a contract.

---

I am sure there was a contract to originally get them the status in return for bringing x number of jobs, etc., and it probably had some minimum term. But I would be shocked if the State had granted them an open ended contract that guaranteed their ability to keep that special status indefinitely.

Quote:

---

Surprised Disney didn't force the state to enter a contract.

---

Because they cannot force the state to do so.

93MarineHorn said:

---

Quote:

---

"The case that it was DeSantis's retaliation in response to protected speech is rock solid. There's no way that the state can get around that part because of all the public statements DeSantis and legislators have made [including what Republican state representative Randy Fine said when he introduced the bill to dissolve the special district: "This bill does target one company: it targets the Walt Disney Company"] and the timing, and a million other things. The governor and the legislature put in bright lights, they lit it up in a billboard, saying this is retaliation and retaliation specifically for protected speech, which is prohibited under the First Amendment".

---

Where does this fantasy come from? How did we get to a point where a law is constitutional or not based on previous statements of legislators or what some judge thinks is a nefarious intention? What a ridiculous standard if upheld. Of course the law only affects Disney, it's the only entity with a special set aside. I'm not a lawyer so can one chime in that isn't a lib prof at UCF.

So if you express a dislike for Disney, and then pass a law that Disney deems harmful the law becomes unconstitutional?

---

Apparently he thinks so.

He also thinks that if Disney spends any money or issues any statements on any issue then they have exercised their First Amendment rights and are then protected from ANY legislation that might affect it negatively.

Rockdoc said:

---

Hypocrite Hunter said:

---

Yeah, your "friend" doesn't sound partisan at all….

---

And is make believe.

---

Probably more ChatGPT than friend...or maybe that's his only friend?

txags92 said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Quote:

---

They are taking away a perk that previously treated Disney unequally to other similar businesses.

---

Yes. But it was a perk they had for decades. It's not just random they decided to try to take it away. It's not that they've had a perk for a long time and now it's time to take it away.

It's stated by both the governor and legislature it's due to their stance on the don't say gay thing. I'm no lawyer, but when the government says they are punishing you to the entire world, seems pretty easy to prove the motive for removal is punishment.

---

The law doesnt care if you "punished" them or "retaliated" against them for some reason. The law cares if they were treated unequally. If they were singled out for treatment that punished them in a way that other similar businesses are not also punished, they have a case. If the "punishment" is to treat them equally, they are going to have a hard time proving the state did anything wrong.

---

Ok, thanks. Surprised Disney didn't force the state to enter a contract.

---

I am sure there was a contract to originally get them the status in return for bringing x number of jobs, etc., and it probably had some minimum term. But I would be shocked if the State had granted them an open ended contract that guaranteed their ability to keep that special status indefinitely.

---

So about that billion dollars in bonds? The new district may have to raise taxes on those within their district, which is mostly Disney anyway. Won't be raised on Joe Blow living in Tampa. The increase in taxes has always been a red herring for the Florida taxpayers at large.

Bill Clinternet said:

---

This is exactly what is occurring. Disney criticized the Dont Say Gay law. DeSantis retaliated against them and used the full force of the executive office in Florida to do so.

---

There is no Don't Say Gay law in Florida.

There is an HB 1557: Parental Rights in Education law.

Doesn't have anything in it that states you can't say gay in it, though.

txags92 said:

---

There is a difference between purely punitive actions like saying "we are going to levy an additional 1% tax on all Disney profits" and actions that level the playing field (i.e. "We are going to go back to treating Disney exactly like every other amusement park in Florida"). One is a punitive action that would clearly target just one business for unequal treatment in the eyes of the law. The other is an action that simply treats Disney exactly like everybody else, without special perks they were granted 50+ years ago. Unless I am mistaken in my memory, the legislation that dissolved Reedy Creek also dissolved several other similar districts, so it didn't "just target disney".

---

And would have absolutely nothing to do with "Free Speech"...

aggiehawg said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Quote:

---

They are taking away a perk that previously treated Disney unequally to other similar businesses.

---

Yes. But it was a perk they had for decades. It's not just random they decided to try to take it away. It's not that they've had a perk for a long time and now it's time to take it away.

It's stated by both the governor and legislature it's due to their stance on the don't say gay thing. I'm no lawyer, but when the government says they are punishing you to the entire world, seems pretty easy to prove the motive for removal is punishment.

---

The law doesnt care if you "punished" them or "retaliated" against them for some reason. The law cares if they were treated unequally. If they were singled out for treatment that punished them in a way that other similar businesses are not also punished, they have a case. If the "punishment" is to treat them equally, they are going to have a hard time proving the state did anything wrong.

---

Ok, thanks. Surprised Disney didn't force the state to enter a contract.

---

I am sure there was a contract to originally get them the status in return for bringing x number of jobs, etc., and it probably had some minimum term. But I would be shocked if the State had granted them an open ended contract that guaranteed their ability to keep that special status indefinitely.

---

So about that billion dollars in bonds? The new district may have to raise taxes on those within their district, which is mostly Disney anyway. Won't be raised on Joe Blow living in Tampa. The increase in taxes has always been a red herring for the Florida taxpayers at large.

---

Yeah, my read was that the bonds were going to carry over to the new district. Disney was always on the hook and still will be IMO.

Ag with kids said:

---

Bill Clinternet said:

---

This is exactly what is occurring. Disney criticized the Dont Say Gay law. DeSantis retaliated against them and used the full force of the executive office in Florida to do so.

---

There is no Don't Say Gay law in Florida.

There is an HB 1557: Parental Rights in Education law.

Doesn't have anything in it that states you can't say gay in it, though.

---

Exactly. The left loves to mischaracterize their opposition. Strawmen are easier to fight than actual people using logic and reason.

Quote:

---

Yeah, my read was that the bonds were going to carry over to the new district. Disney was always on the hook and still will be IMO.

---

Early on, there was some question whether the new district would have those bonds carry over to them with the argument being they would then be converted into general revenue bonds, if they were not. That was a very slim chance it would happen and it did not. Bonds remain in place with the successor district.

Ironically, the reason there was a slim chance the successor district would not assume the obligations was because the Disney appointed Board for Reedy hired the General Counsel for Disney as their General Counsel and his name is all over those bond documents on behalf of too many entities. And that issue with the offering would provide the successor district to call them void as to them. Statute requires independent counsel. Would have been a fight but there was a basis to consider that.

Again, a Disney created f***-up.

12 minute video on Disney's claims, in particular First Amendment claims.