To succeed on a First Amendment retaliation claim, a civil-rights plaintiff must demonstrate three things. First, the plaintiff engaged in protected conduct. This means that the plaintiff's speech or expression was the type traditionally covered under the First Amendment. Second, an adverse action was taken against the plaintiff that would deter "a person of ordinary firmness" from continuing to engage in that speech or conduct. Third, there is a cause-and-effect relationship between these two elements, i.e., the adverse action was motivated at least in part by the plaintiff's protected conduct.

Hole in one case for Disney.

If I were on the jury, Disney would lose.

They are being treated unequally under the law.

Bill Clinternet said:

---

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".

---

Seems to me the main question is whether the loss of a special privilege no one else gets can qualify for "retaliation". I don't know the answer to that but seems different from creating a tax no one else pays except disney.

Regardless, seems like this is a short term win for Disney. A new set of representatives can run next election on a platform of "fairness for all Florida businesses". Disney can't construe that as retaliation and everyone will know exactly what is being done and why.

Bill Clinternet said:

---

To succeed on a First Amendment retaliation claim, a civil-rights plaintiff must demonstrate three things. First, the plaintiff engaged in protected conduct. This means that the plaintiff's speech or expression was the type traditionally covered under the First Amendment. Second, an adverse action was taken against the plaintiff that would deter "a person of ordinary firmness" from continuing to engage in that speech or conduct. Third, there is a cause-and-effect relationship between these two elements, i.e., the adverse action was motivated at least in part by the plaintiff's protected conduct.

Hole in one case for Disney.

---

Is that what your bot said? Does your bot make bets?

Quote:

---

Hole in one case for Disney.

---

Hardly.

Here is Disney's problem. Massive securities fraud certifying on bond documents that an independent counsel assured that Reedy Creek was an independent body be both the counsel for Reedy Creek and Disneyworld for over 30 years?

What has happened with McGowan is a disbarrable offense under Florida's Rules of Ethics. Take it up with McGowan.

Rockdoc said:

---

Bill Clinternet said:

---

To succeed on a First Amendment retaliation claim, a civil-rights plaintiff must demonstrate three things. First, the plaintiff engaged in protected conduct. This means that the plaintiff's speech or expression was the type traditionally covered under the First Amendment. Second, an adverse action was taken against the plaintiff that would deter "a person of ordinary firmness" from continuing to engage in that speech or conduct. Third, there is a cause-and-effect relationship between these two elements, i.e., the adverse action was motivated at least in part by the plaintiff's protected conduct.

Hole in one case for Disney.

---

Is that what your bot said? Does your bot make bets?

---

Your obsession is noted sir,

Bill Clinternet said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

Bill Clinternet said:

---

To succeed on a First Amendment retaliation claim, a civil-rights plaintiff must demonstrate three things. First, the plaintiff engaged in protected conduct. This means that the plaintiff's speech or expression was the type traditionally covered under the First Amendment. Second, an adverse action was taken against the plaintiff that would deter "a person of ordinary firmness" from continuing to engage in that speech or conduct. Third, there is a cause-and-effect relationship between these two elements, i.e., the adverse action was motivated at least in part by the plaintiff's protected conduct.

Hole in one case for Disney.

---

Is that what your bot said? Does your bot make bets?

---

Your obsession is noted sir,

---

But my thoughts are my own.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Hole in one case for Disney.

---

Hardly.

Here is Disney's problem. Massive securities fraud certifying on bond documents that an independent counsel assured that Reedy Creek was an independent body be both the counsel for Reedy Creek and Disneyworld for over 30 years?

What has happened with McGowan is a disbarrable offense under Florida's Rules of Ethics. Take it up with McGowan.

---

But for……the retaliation ma'am.

Rockdoc said:

---

Bill Clinternet said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

Bill Clinternet said:

---

To succeed on a First Amendment retaliation claim, a civil-rights plaintiff must demonstrate three things. First, the plaintiff engaged in protected conduct. This means that the plaintiff's speech or expression was the type traditionally covered under the First Amendment. Second, an adverse action was taken against the plaintiff that would deter "a person of ordinary firmness" from continuing to engage in that speech or conduct. Third, there is a cause-and-effect relationship between these two elements, i.e., the adverse action was motivated at least in part by the plaintiff's protected conduct.

Hole in one case for Disney.

---

Is that what your bot said? Does your bot make bets?

---

Your obsession is noted sir,

---

But my thoughts are my own.

---

So is your obsession.

Bill Clinternet said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

Bill Clinternet said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

Bill Clinternet said:

---

To succeed on a First Amendment retaliation claim, a civil-rights plaintiff must demonstrate three things. First, the plaintiff engaged in protected conduct. This means that the plaintiff's speech or expression was the type traditionally covered under the First Amendment. Second, an adverse action was taken against the plaintiff that would deter "a person of ordinary firmness" from continuing to engage in that speech or conduct. Third, there is a cause-and-effect relationship between these two elements, i.e., the adverse action was motivated at least in part by the plaintiff's protected conduct.

Hole in one case for Disney.

---

Is that what your bot said? Does your bot make bets?

---

Your obsession is noted sir,

---

But my thoughts are my own.

---

So is your obsession.

---

Is that what your bot said?

Bill Clinternet said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Hole in one case for Disney.

---

Hardly.

Here is Disney's problem. Massive securities fraud certifying on bond documents that an independent counsel assured that Reedy Creek was an independent body be both the counsel for Reedy Creek and Disneyworld for over 30 years?

What has happened with McGowan is a disbarrable offense under Florida's Rules of Ethics. Take it up with McGowan.

---

But for……the retaliation ma'am.

---

Disney committed securities fraud loooooonnng before DeSantis was even Governor.

Bill Clinternet said:

---

To succeed on a First Amendment retaliation claim, a civil-rights plaintiff must demonstrate three things. First, the plaintiff engaged in protected conduct. This means that the plaintiff's speech or expression was the type traditionally covered under the First Amendment. Second, an adverse action was taken against the plaintiff that would deter "a person of ordinary firmness" from continuing to engage in that speech or conduct. Third, there is a cause-and-effect relationship between these two elements, i.e., the adverse action was motivated at least in part by the plaintiff's protected conduct.

Hole in one case for Disney.

---

Disney is more than welcome to say what it wants, no one is stopping them. They are just suffering consequences for that speech because shockingly not everyone thinks that K-3rd graders should be taught gender theory and be sexualized without parental consent.

For the 1000th time, you have a right to free speech but you do not have a right to be free of consequences of your speech. The People of Florida don't like grooming, sorry.

aggiehawg said:

---

Bill Clinternet said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Hole in one case for Disney.

---

Hardly.

Here is Disney's problem. Massive securities fraud certifying on bond documents that an independent counsel assured that Reedy Creek was an independent body be both the counsel for Reedy Creek and Disneyworld for over 30 years?

What has happened with McGowan is a disbarrable offense under Florida's Rules of Ethics. Take it up with McGowan.

---

But for……the retaliation ma'am.

---

Disney committed securities fraud loooooonnng before DeSantis was even Governor.

---

Can't seem to find what you are referring to online. Can you provide a link to the securities fraud allegations?

aggie93 said:

---

Bill Clinternet said:

---

To succeed on a First Amendment retaliation claim, a civil-rights plaintiff must demonstrate three things. First, the plaintiff engaged in protected conduct. This means that the plaintiff's speech or expression was the type traditionally covered under the First Amendment. Second, an adverse action was taken against the plaintiff that would deter "a person of ordinary firmness" from continuing to engage in that speech or conduct. Third, there is a cause-and-effect relationship between these two elements, i.e., the adverse action was motivated at least in part by the plaintiff's protected conduct.

Hole in one case for Disney.

---

Disney is more than welcome to say what it wants, no one is stopping them. They are just suffering consequences for that speech because shockingly not everyone thinks that K-3rd graders should be taught gender theory and be sexualized without parental consent.

For the 1000th time, you have a right to free speech but you do not have a right to be free of consequences of your speech. The People of Florida don't like grooming, sorry.

---

You just proved my point. Disney exercised free speech. Governor de Santis punished them for this in retaliation.

How did they retaliate?

Bill Clinternet said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

Bill Clinternet said:

---

To succeed on a First Amendment retaliation claim, a civil-rights plaintiff must demonstrate three things. First, the plaintiff engaged in protected conduct. This means that the plaintiff's speech or expression was the type traditionally covered under the First Amendment. Second, an adverse action was taken against the plaintiff that would deter "a person of ordinary firmness" from continuing to engage in that speech or conduct. Third, there is a cause-and-effect relationship between these two elements, i.e., the adverse action was motivated at least in part by the plaintiff's protected conduct.

Hole in one case for Disney.

---

Disney is more than welcome to say what it wants, no one is stopping them. They are just suffering consequences for that speech because shockingly not everyone thinks that K-3rd graders should be taught gender theory and be sexualized without parental consent.

For the 1000th time, you have a right to free speech but you do not have a right to be free of consequences of your speech. The People of Florida don't like grooming, sorry.

---

You just proved my point. Disney exercised free speech. Governor de Santis punished them for this in retaliation.

---

No, the People of Florida decided to elect their Representatives to pass a law that Disney didn't like. That's not remotely the same thing. You are making a legal argument around Freedom of Speech which is definitely protected and then considering any consequences from that speech to be "Retaliation" and somehow that isn't legal even though no laws were broken and in fact a new law was created.

Now if you can show where DeSantis abused his powers then you can go after him for that, you can't go after him though for advocating for a Bill that was passed that doesn't favor Disney though and think that has some legal recourse.

My liberal BILs from Michigan were in town this weekend *****ing about this. Saying Disney is the only reason people go to Florida. I've been to Florida a few dozen times since I was a kid and never went to Disney. Beaches are where it's at.

They'll be surprised when their sister and I move to Florida in a few years.

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

How did they retaliate?

---

Already posted in detail earlier in the thread

Bill Clinternet said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

How did they retaliate?

---

Already posted in detail earlier in the thread

---

What you posted is by definition, not a punishment.

Bill Clinternet said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

How did they retaliate?

---

Already posted in detail earlier in the thread

---

Not seeing it

Bill Clinternet said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Bill Clinternet said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Hole in one case for Disney.

---

Hardly.

Here is Disney's problem. Massive securities fraud certifying on bond documents that an independent counsel assured that Reedy Creek was an independent body be both the counsel for Reedy Creek and Disneyworld for over 30 years?

What has happened with McGowan is a disbarrable offense under Florida's Rules of Ethics. Take it up with McGowan.

---

But for……the retaliation ma'am.

---

Disney committed securities fraud loooooonnng before DeSantis was even Governor.

---

Can't seem to find what you are referring to online. Can you provide a link to the securities fraud allegations?

---

Already posted the youtube detailing it.

Click and actually listen for once and you might learn something.

Or just ask your regular chat for that. (hint: they know zero about bond laws in Florida.)

LOL.

Bill Clinternet said:

---

To succeed on a First Amendment retaliation claim, a civil-rights plaintiff must demonstrate three things. First, the plaintiff engaged in protected conduct. This means that the plaintiff's speech or expression was the type traditionally covered under the First Amendment. Second, an adverse action was taken against the plaintiff that would deter "a person of ordinary firmness" from continuing to engage in that speech or conduct. Third, there is a cause-and-effect relationship between these two elements, i.e., the adverse action was motivated at least in part by the plaintiff's protected conduct.

Hole in one case for Disney.

---

ChatGPT is failing you today.

But, when you start an argument with a false premise, everything after that is BS...

Ag with kids said:

---

Bill Clinternet said:

---

To succeed on a First Amendment retaliation claim, a civil-rights plaintiff must demonstrate three things. First, the plaintiff engaged in protected conduct. This means that the plaintiff's speech or expression was the type traditionally covered under the First Amendment. Second, an adverse action was taken against the plaintiff that would deter "a person of ordinary firmness" from continuing to engage in that speech or conduct. Third, there is a cause-and-effect relationship between these two elements, i.e., the adverse action was motivated at least in part by the plaintiff's protected conduct.

Hole in one case for Disney.

---

ChatGPT is failing you today.

But, when you start an argument with a false premise, everything after that is BS...

---

There is nothing false about this. DeSantis retaliated.

aggiehawg said:

---

Bill Clinternet said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Bill Clinternet said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Hole in one case for Disney.

---

Hardly.

Here is Disney's problem. Massive securities fraud certifying on bond documents that an independent counsel assured that Reedy Creek was an independent body be both the counsel for Reedy Creek and Disneyworld for over 30 years?

What has happened with McGowan is a disbarrable offense under Florida's Rules of Ethics. Take it up with McGowan.

---

But for……the retaliation ma'am.

---

Disney committed securities fraud loooooonnng before DeSantis was even Governor.

---

Can't seem to find what you are referring to online. Can you provide a link to the securities fraud allegations?

---

Already posted the youtube detailing it.

Click and actually listen for once and you might learn something.

Or just ask your regular chat for that. (hint: they know zero about bond laws in Florida.)

LOL.

---

So it's in the disgruntled attorney YouTube but nowhere else online? Allegations of securities fraud against a corporation of Disneys size would probably be available to review, in some manner, online. This sounds like more news max and right wing election fraud conspiracy nonsense.

Bill Clinternet said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Bill Clinternet said:

---

To succeed on a First Amendment retaliation claim, a civil-rights plaintiff must demonstrate three things. First, the plaintiff engaged in protected conduct. This means that the plaintiff's speech or expression was the type traditionally covered under the First Amendment. Second, an adverse action was taken against the plaintiff that would deter "a person of ordinary firmness" from continuing to engage in that speech or conduct. Third, there is a cause-and-effect relationship between these two elements, i.e., the adverse action was motivated at least in part by the plaintiff's protected conduct.

Hole in one case for Disney.

---

ChatGPT is failing you today.

But, when you start an argument with a false premise, everything after that is BS...

---

There is nothing false about this. DeSantis retaliated.

---

Unless you can show where he abused his power in doing so though it's irrelevant. Not sure why you can't grasp that concept. He actually went above and beyond to make sure to follow the law because he is really good at this and is a Harvard lawyer himself.

Your entire premise is that Disney can spend millions of dollars on a campaign pushing a political solution yet the opponents of that political solution can't even use legal means to do anything against that company including taking away special privileges that company was granted by the same People who gave them to them in the first place.

It's ridiculous.

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

Bill Clinternet said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

How did they retaliate?

---

Already posted in detail earlier in the thread

---

What you posted is by definition, not a punishment.

---

Because one is abnormal, but you knew that

Bill Clinternet said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Bill Clinternet said:

---

To succeed on a First Amendment retaliation claim, a civil-rights plaintiff must demonstrate three things. First, the plaintiff engaged in protected conduct. This means that the plaintiff's speech or expression was the type traditionally covered under the First Amendment. Second, an adverse action was taken against the plaintiff that would deter "a person of ordinary firmness" from continuing to engage in that speech or conduct. Third, there is a cause-and-effect relationship between these two elements, i.e., the adverse action was motivated at least in part by the plaintiff's protected conduct.

Hole in one case for Disney.

---

ChatGPT is failing you today.

But, when you start an argument with a false premise, everything after that is BS...

---

There is nothing false about this. DeSantis retaliated.

---

The First Amendment schtick is your false premise.

DeSantis is immaterial in any of this.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Because one is abnormal, but you knew that

---

Abnormal how? Context plain sir.

Bill Clinternet said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Because one is abnormal, but you knew that

---

Abnormal how? Context plain sir.

---

deviating from the normal or average

Fact: Both DeSantis and the Florida legislature say taking away Disney's special privilege was retaliation for Disney's public statement about the bill. I don't have to be a lawyer to know that's pretty clear.

Lawyers on here say it's legal to penalize a business by removing a privilege other theme parks don't have, even in the case of clear retaliation.

I will believe that because I don't know.

So, "retaliation" is irrelevant.

Now, if Universal studios has a similar privledge, then the state seems to be ****ed. But I have no idea what Universal's deal is either.

Bill Clinternet said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Because one is abnormal, but you knew that

---

Abnormal how? Context plain sir.

---

Homosexual behavior is abnormal. What other "context" do you need?

Quote:

---

Now, if Universal studios has a similar privledge, then the state seems to be ****ed. But I have no idea what Universal's deal is either.

---

Universal asked for it. Andrew (Legal Mindset) worked on trying to get that deal for them too.
No go.

Quote:

---

Lawyers on here say it's legal to penalize a business by removing a privilege other theme parks don't have, even in the case of clear retaliation.

---

That is not correct. Even if a legal action, it's unconstitutional if done as retaliation for someone exercising free speech.

Courts will defer to government as to what that "reason" is. So tough case for Disney to win.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Now, if Universal studios has a similar privledge, then the state seems to be ****ed. But I have no idea what Universal's deal is either.

---

Universal asked for it. Andrew (Legal Mindset) worked on trying to get that deal for them too.
No go.

---

Go to 9 minute 30 minute mark. Universal went to the state legislature to ask if they could get a deal like Reedy and the state lege said, "Hell, f***ing no. We're never going to do that again."