When I check, I definitely see movies first.
Theme parks are a distant third.
I think that movie side includes ESPN and ABC (big American television networks).
I’m not sure how relevant that is to the DeSantis issue.
However, you are correct that Disney isn’t mostly theme parks.
I assume it’s not going to end, at least not in the next few decades/generations/lifetimed.
applause
I believe, if Disney had not suspended political donations until the Don’t Say Gay law is repealed, they would not have incurred the wrath of DeSantis. I don’t think it’s about their “speech” per se, it’s about the money.
~Max
But money is speech, right? Isn’t that what Citizens United established?
US: “Supreme Court, we need you to find the difference between these two pictures.”
USSC: “They’re the same picture”
I believe a huge portion of Disney’s revenue (more than the parks esp. with COVID-19) is their broadcast networks: ESPN, ABC, the Disney Channel, FX, Disney+, Hulu, History, NatGeo, etc. May be mistaken on that, though.
~Max
The law is titled “Parental Rights in Education”. “Don’t Say Gay” is a media moniker. Think Obamacare versus Affordable Care Act.
Exxon recently banned its employees from flying a Pride (rainbow) flag on it’s corporate flagpole, but has not specifically weighed in on this particular bill.
~Max
If this was Disney doing the same thing to another company or individual through the mechanism of the courts, it would absolutely be a SLAPP suit. But it’s apparently OK for the state government to punish a private entity for its beliefs, even though the entity has not violated any laws?
That’s ultimately the meat of this matter; it’s punishment for making public statements that the party in charge of the state government don’t like.
It’s absolutely chilling; what’s next- movie and TV studios having to submit their works for an ideological purity review and rewrites? It’s ultimately not very far off from this when you come right down to it.
They already censor themselves for China, why not? /s
Government taking an otherwise permissible action, specifically to retaliate against a private entity exercising protected behavior, is not permissible. The classic example of this is in government contracting, the government at various levels is allowed to use plenary discretion in awarding contracts (in some cases that is not the case because there are mandated contracting processes–but this is not universal.) However in a classic Supreme Court case, a mayor asked a tow truck company owner for a political donation, when the owner refused and stated he was supporting the mayor’s opponent in the upcoming election, the mayor dropped the tow company from the city’s tow list–something that the city could do essentially whenever it wanted under normal circumstances, but because it did so to retaliate against a private entity engaging in protected activity (deciding to not donate money to a political candidate, and to publicly support a different candidate), the mayor’s actions were deemed unconstitutional.
The biggest wrinkle with Florida and Disney is that the action is technically not being directed at the Disney company, but at the Reedy Creek Improvement District, and other districts like it. The Reedy Creek Improvement District is a political / legal entity, and the courts are generally far more lenient towards government retaliating against other government entities for purely political reasons. For example, a State deciding to curtail privileges long enjoyed by municipalities specifically because the State legislature has a political beef with the cities–the courts generally view that as part of the “political process” and don’t view it the same way as my example about the mayor of a town and a tow company doing business with said town.
Wait until he hears about The Villages, FL. The Republican stronghold where DeSantis made the announcement that sparked this thread.
~Max
In that post I was trying to address what appears to be some posters’ opinions that this is unexpectedly strong retaliation for a written or spoken statement, such as a press release. Such as bump’s post I quoted, or JRDelirious’s summary here,
@bump, since I see it as GOP retaliation for cutting off a money supply I don’t think it’s “absurd”. My reaction isn’t WTF, but rather, why am I not surprised?
~Max
Since when are politicians entitled to donations? Since when is it ok to use the power of the state to punish people for not donating to them?
This is a really really bad thing for society.
I forget where I first heard it; it’s not mine, the idea that politicians should dress in racing suits adorned with the patches of those who donate to them, those whom they actually represent.
Sounds like something George Carlin would have said.
The point is that it’s a political party using the power of the state to enforce their own ideological opinions. That’s what I have issue with- it’s the principle, not the magnitude.
I wouldn’t have too much issue with say… Disney related bills dying in committee in Tallahassee in the next legislative session. That’s just GOP legislators not going to bat for Disney, which is similar but not the same as using the power of the State of Florida to actively punish them. One is basically the quid pro quo of politics, and the other is effectively state-sponsored ideological coercion.
The point is that they hadn’t actually withdrawn any money yet. They just wrote something about it. The normal thing for a corrupt government to do would be to sit back and wait and see if it’s just a PR statement or actually going to be backed up. It could have just been a small blip, but then they declared war on Disney over it. And they somehow think they will win over Disney, who has changed international law with its power.