DeSantis's war on Disney

[BigT]

@Max_S

@BigT

The definition of freedom of speech requires at the very least that the government cannot punish you for the content of your speech.⁢

Nitpick: does not.

Nope. Cannot. Simply choosing not to restrict something doesn’t make it a legal right. A legal right is something that is not allowed to be infringed upon.

@BigT

This is a basic logical syllogism: we have if P then Q (if we have freedom of speech, then the government cannot punish you for the content of your speech). You have argued not P (the government can punish you for your speech). Therefore not Q (we do not have freedom of speech).⁢

In some situations you don’t. It doesn’t follow that freedom of speech doesn’t exist at all in the United States.

But that is not the situation at hand. You were arguing that the government could use eminent domain to punish you for your speech. If so, that would apply to everyone who owns a home or property.

They don’t have the right to do that. Because it would infringe on freedom of speech. You would have a very obvious legal recourse: you’d sue, and very likely win.

[Skipping the next reply since it depends on the previous one.]

By definition, a city that takes a bribe is corrupt.

Sure, but not relevant to the situation at hand. We’re talking about your claim that there would be no legal recourse if a government used eminent domain not for an actual purpose, but as a means of punishment for a person whose actions they did not like.

And, no, it’s not relevant to the Disney situation, either. Paying to support politicians is not a bribe, but a fundamental part of how are democracy works. The only way to get rid of it would be to guarantee candidates funding instead of allowing individual donations.

I don’t know why I have to fight so hard to show that governments do not have the right to punish people for their speech, even if they try to use some loophole to pull it off. It’s quite annoying having to argue so hard for the basics.

[k9bfriender]

My business is in a special district similar to the one Disney is in. We have a council that meets on local districting and zoning matters, and we collect our own tax for local infrastructure improvements.

It’s really not that uncommon a practice, as you seem to think it is.

[DavidNRockies]

I don’t think you’d have to move in order to get tax incentives (among other inducements) from the State government:

West Virginia's Business Development Incentives | West Virginia Department of...

[Yllaria]

@sachertorte

Furthermore, RCID (Disney) pays their employees (e.g. fire department) more than their county counterparts so (1) Disney is paying more with RCID than without and (2) this sets up a huge headache for the counties as they have no way to absorb these employees in a fair way.

Just to throw it out there, Disney World also has its own sewage treatment plant, its own mosquito abatement program, and other things. Disney keeps their programs cutting edge.

Disney has published studies of sewage treatment changes in actual journals. To reduce the use of insecticides, they keep chicken coops hidden in surrounding areas and have a team that regularly inspects them for mosquito bites.

No county is going to spend what Disney is spending on their infrastructure.

[Exapno_Mapcase]

@DavidNRockies

Interestingly, it’s his opinion that – if this dissolution of RCID goes through – Disney will likely have to close up shop in FL.

The basis for his position is that Disney will no longer be able to control every aspect of its infrastructure to the gnat’s ass. They won’t be able to maintain and portray the illusion of ‘perfection’ that is really core to the Disney World tourist experience.

I’m torn. I’m not about to sit through ten minutes of a talk, but I can’t agree with a word of this synopsis.

Disney World takes in at least $5 billion a year, so its value is in the tens of billions, and the value in terms of branding must be in the hundreds of billions. Disney won’t and can’t walk away from that. It would be like New York signing away Central Park.

Besides, all the other theme parks in Orlando manage to function without the advantages of Reedy Creek. Disney will manage - and do so mostly by offloading every possible cost onto the taxpayers. Disney can’t lose. It has survived a thousand scandals that would put any other operation out of business. And they can wait DeSantis out if it takes the rest of his life.

[PhillyGuy]

@DavidNRockies

Interestingly, it’s his opinion that – if this dissolution of RCID goes through – Disney will likely have to close up shop in FL.

DeSantis will cave to the extent necessary to prevent that.

Despite the title of this thread, the bills Ron signed today were a mixed bag for Disney:

DeSantis Revokes Special Status

DeSantis claimed Friday that this [Disney-friendly] provision was “snuck into” the bill, but records previously reported show that the governor’s own staff helped write it to benefit Disney.

“Gov. DeSantis claims that he hates special privileges and special perks, except he actually helps facilitate them all the time, so he’s a giant hypocrite,” state Rep. Carlos Guillermo Smith (D-Orlando) said Friday.

[DrDeth]

@UltraVires

This is about whether it can have a special, to them, governmental district.

You seem to think these special districts are something unusual. They are not.

@UltraVires

Is Disney being punished or is it being rewarded by having their obligations pushed off on the surrounding counties?

Disney needed to special improvement district to do the needed improvements, and spend their own $$, without getting local governments to shoulder the cost… but also keeps them from a zillion interferences.

Now, Disney is/will be freed from a billion or two or debt, but won;t be able to build and improve as it sees fit. Disneyland had this a while ago as a anti-DL City council got elected and squashed majors plans… more or less just because. They are gone now.

[ekedolphin]

From this article:

Aside from the “Don’t Say Gay” criticisms, DeSantis said Friday that he is also against recent statements by Disney executives discussing efforts to include more diverse characters in their content. He cited recorded Zoom calls from the company that were reported by Christopher Rufo, a conservative activist who attended Friday’s bill signing and was praised by DeSantis for “raising the alarm” about critical race theory in schools.

“I’m just not comfortable having that type of agenda get special treatment in my state,” DeSantis said. “I just can’t do it."

(Bolding mine).

Recent efforts? The Princess and the Frog came out 13 years ago, and a key theme of the movie was that the protagonist, Tiana, was not going to be allowed to open her gourmet restaurant in 1920s New Orleans, despite her fantastic talent, because she was black.

The film came out 13 years ago. And you’ve been happy to accept Disney’s money up until very recently. It begs the question…

[DavidNRockies]

It’s a great argument, but I’m inclined to feel about this one the way I do vis-a-vis the “what do we do about Ukraine” situation: I lack the vast majority of the information I would need to make an informed decision, but it’s a high consequence scenario.

I have no idea what economics face Disney World if this truly goes through. I also don’t know how quickly or how well the local municipalities could ramp up what’s likely to be an entirely new panoply of operations to maintain their pristine (and – as noted already – often cutting edge) infrastructure.

All of which, at the end of the day, goes some way toward informing a hugely consequential decision, reminiscent of a great line from “Hunt For Red October:”

The hard part about playing chicken is knowin’ when to flinch.

I don’t know the Disney corporate/Board of Directors playbook at all. If they’re a company that’s willing to bluff, or call (in the poker sense) a bluff, then they may do what due diligence they can, mount whatever legal offensive they can muster, and conceivably threaten to close down (as they did during the COVID lockdowns).

They lost billions in that time period, but – given enough information – there are ways to make soft estimates about likelihood of prevailing, of a bluff working, and the cost to find out.

I also have absolutely no idea how much of their operational costs can be passed along to taxpayers, and how much they’d have to continue to absorb in order to maintain the very high standard they’ve so famously set. Lowering the bar reduces nearly every above-the-line item for Disney, almost invariably, by giving away a very valuable competitive advantage to any number of competitors.

I’m lacking basically all of the important numbers – data that I’m sure Disney (and FL) is scrambling to evaluate as we speak. I’d also feel more confident in Disney’s ability to analyze the economics of all of this than in the State of Florida’s.

[UltraVires]

@snowthx

The state wants to pass a law that damages some of your client base.

How so? How is not talking about LGBTQ issues from K-3 a “damage” to clients? I checked and yes, I own some Disney shares. The corporation’s job is to make me money. They are to have a happy fun park and take people’s money, full stop. By taking a position on this or any political issue, they are harming me in my wallet. They legally owe ME a fiduciary duty. If individuals in charge of a corporation have political views, then they can express them as individuals, but as a corporation, they should have no view on any issue except what affects my wallet.

But aside from that, I stand by my earlier comments. This seems to be a financial benefit to Disney as the other counties must assume their bond debt. I mean, as far as punishments go, can I have one?

[Cheesesteak]

@Exapno_Mapcase

Speech has no consequences because of the First Amendment?

No consequences driven by the government, in response to speech about the government.

If Safeway doesn’t want to write “Happy Birthday Hitler” on your cake, it isn’t a 1A violation, because Safeway isn’t the government.

If the government decides to punish you because you criticized the government, that is a 1A violation.

I’m having a hard time parsing this Disney action any other way. They criticized DeSantis, now DeSantis is leading the charge to punish them.

Often, these actions are covered with a fig leaf, a thin veneer of ‘discretion’ or decision making about an issue important to the person/company. This time it isn’t, because the point is to be publicly spanking Disney over this political issue. Only, it’s deeply illegal for the government to be in the business of punishing political rivals.

[snowthx]

So, you agree DeSantis’ action will result in a tax increase to the two counties’ residents, right? And that tax increase may likely get spread to the other taxpayers in all of Florida, since the burden will be too big for the two counties alone. DeSantis is raising taxes on Floridians so he can punish a company that does not support one of his laws. Right?

[UltraVires]

I don’t know enough about FL law to completely agree with you, but it seems as if from my reading of the news stories that you are correct. But it isn’t just DeSantis; this is a representative democratically passed law.

[bobot]

@UltraVires

I checked and yes, I own some Disney shares. The corporation’s job is to make me money. They are to have a happy fun park and take people’s money, full stop. By taking a position on this or any political issue, they are harming me in my wallet.

You aren’t obligated to own Disney shares.

[UltraVires]

Respectfully, that completely missed the point. Nobody is obligated to own Disney stock. But as they offer it to anyone with cash, then they owe a fiduciary duty under the law to me. And that goes for all companies who offer public stock.

Posters are talking as if Disney is Uncle Otis who runs a general store in Hicktown, WV. When you go public, you take on a public duty. And the position of a shareholder is simply to operate a fucking park and sell Mickey Mouse dolls and make cartoon movies that make money. If there is a law about abortion, gun control, gay rights, or a tax cut for the rich, then you (we) have no position at all on that because we are just a group to have a happy fun park.

[bobot]

I’d sell the shares then, in your shoes.

[Chronos]

@Little_Nemo

I don’t feel this is true. I feel the point for Republicans is about having power.

See Orwell’s discussion of this in 1984: There’s a certain mindset that says that cruelty is the essence of power. Making people happy isn’t power, because if you didn’t have power, trying to be happy is what people would do anyway. Only by making people feel or act in ways that they otherwise wouldn’t are you exerting power.

Back to Disney as an enemy, let’s not forget that Disney isn’t just an international megacorporation with billions of dollars available to throw around. They’re an international megacorporation with billions of dollars to throw around, who specializes in messaging. If the Republicans piss them off enough, they can, if they choose, start doing things like putting anti-Republican propaganda into their movies.

[iiandyiiii]

Disney did what it did for business reasons. They’ve calculated, hopefully rightfully, that supporting gay rights will help their bottom line more than staying silent.

The idea that they’re doing this out of the goodness of their heart sounds profoundly naive.

[UltraVires]

@iiandyiiii

They’ve calculated, hopefully rightfully, that supporting gay rights will help their bottom line more than staying silent.

They should not make that wager with my money. Put the debate aside…guns, gay rights, abortion, etc. If you take a stand on any of those issues, either way, you are inviting backlash from customers. Just run a fucking fun park and be done with it.

[iiandyiiii]

Staying silent invites backlash (probably guarantees it). Many of us no longer want to patronize corporations that don’t stand up for human rights.

You seem to think there’s a way for companies to stay out of politics. For huge corporations like Disney, this is entirely impossible. Staying silent in the face of discrimination is taking a position.