10 ms·
Florida governor signs bill stripping Disney of self-governing authority
- _moof 5y agoThis is a shockingly explicit attack by the government on the right to free speech. Florida has come right out and said that they are doing this to punish Disney for expressing a position on legislation. If the constitutional right to free speech doesn't mean that someone can criticize a law without lawmakers punishing them, then what does it mean?
- oliwarner 5y agoIt's more like rescinding state aid than punishing them. They're not limiting Disney's ability to express itself. I'm on Disney's side here, but it's not a free speech issue.
- MrMan 5y agoits an attack on business first of all
- jmoak3 5y agoAn attack on business is an attack on speech, and shockingly the Republican Party has shown itself to be more than happy to assault both. The Democratic Party is not perfect and has a long history of this as well, but this instance feels… feral. I encourage others to vote Democrat for the time being, at least they manage to keep populist leaders from commandeering the party.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- krapp 5y ago... and this is the party people - even on HN of all places - trust to regulate speech on the internet.
- FFRefresh 5y agoI'm conflicted. On the one hand, I dislike everything about the situation. Government officials using their power to attempt to hurt private companies who disagree with them. The whole narrative behind the bill in question is plain stupid on all sides, from how it's being described by the political opposition to whatever culture battle the bill proposers think they are fighting. But on the other hand, why the heck does Disney have these special privileges in the first place? How much have they benefited from this special arrangement they were given? I'd be interested in an honest accounting of that.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- shitlord 5y ago> But on the other hand, why the heck does Disney have these special privileges in the first place? It's probably because of the $5B in annual tax revenue from the FL tourism industry (led by Disney).
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- gamblor956 5y agoThe special district actually existed so that Disney was financially responsible for improvements made to public lands on their behalf, along with expedited permitting processes. Now the taxpayers are on the hook for that special district's debt, which stands at over $100 million. Basically, in attempting to punish Disney, Florida actually ended up giving it a $100+ million subsidy.
- FFRefresh 5y agoLogically, this take seems confusing. Why wouldn't Disney have been advocating for having this special arrangement revoked themselves if it would have been a $100+ million subsidy for them? From my admittedly limited understanding of this whole situation, I think local governments are thinking they can create Municipal Service Taxing Units (MSTU) that would pick up the revenue that would be going to pay for the debt. If I were a betting person, I'd bet on Disney not coming out $100+ million ahead in all this. I would bet that local governments will create taxes for Disney to cover the debt/increased costs they would face. This all makes for a great news story plot though that people love: "Baddies try to do bad thing, and they end up paying the price for it! Ha!"
- syshum 5y agoI dont view it as that. I would agree if this was a law that did infact "punish" them, however removing exemptions from the law they never should have had in the first place IMO is not "punishment" it is correcting an historic wrong All businesses should be treated the same under the law by government, Disney should not be treated any different than Acme Entertainment Co. This is the lesson about "Those in glass houses should not cast stones", Disney was already in a bad spot, and poking the eye of government benefactors is biting the hand that feeds you, them revoking reedy creek is not "punishment" it is justice
- _moof 5y agoYou may not view it that way, but Florida lawmakers do. They've come right out and said that this is punishment. And "poking the eye of the government" is precisely the right guaranteed by first amendment free speech protections. We are explicitly allowed to verbally poke the government without fear that it will poke back.
- syshum 5y agoSo corporations are people now?
- SauciestGNU 5y agoEither they are and this is a free speech violation, or they aren't and we have a lot of people to arrest for bribery.
- mensetmanusman 5y agoThis was in the works long before the controversy, the way it is being spun is probably fake news.
- 8note 5y agoI think it's good that democratic systems have power over capitalist entities. A more democratic system to do so would be better though
- _8j50 5y agoFree speech is for individuals not corporations.
- olliej 5y agoThe Republican Party has staunchly defended the free speech of businesses, up to and including supporting businesses being allowed to force employees to make political speech, and fire employees for political speech they make outside of work hours.
- SpikeDad 5y agoYou mean Republicans are hypocritical and take any position which appears to give them political advantage to the point they screw over their own people? Why haven't I heard about this before? /s
- syshum 5y agoThe Democratic party has staunchly opposed the idea that businesses are people for the purposes of speech. Desiring to regulate all manner of speech by corporations to achieve their political goals It is hypocritical now to defend Disney on "free speech" grounds of all things because they happen in this instance to be supporting the democratic party politically
- krapp 5y agoFree speech is for individuals and groups of individuals which include corporations, political parties, religious groups, affiliate groups, social media platforms, the press, etc.
- _8j50 5y agoNo, rights are for people. Corporations are not groups of individuals but intangible logical entities that groups of individuals use to conduct business. By your logic, revoking the incorporation of a company is equivalent to murder as well? The individuals that own Disney are free to spend their profits however they wish or speak whatever they want like every individual. The ability to use their privilege of being able to conduct business and hire employees to an arbitrary end is not protected. The CEO can say "I hate the president" but the company can be restricted from publishing material to that effect directly or by contracting out the publication to someone else. Especially publicly traded companies like Disney are not making decisions on behalf of every or majority if their shareholders which changes hands frequently. Any speech made by the company does not directly represent the will of the owners but the execution of the business in it's priviledged and regulated capacity under it's incorporation title and public exchange listing.
- JaceLightning 5y agoDisney ran a smear campaign against the government of Florida and advocated against parental rights in education. So the government of Florida removed Disney's immortal governmental status provided to no other companies. This seems fair to all businesses in Florida. It's not about free speech. It's about ending a friendship.
- naoqj 5y ago
- olliej 5y ago
- macintux 5y agoMuch like “pray the gay away” there’s this ongoing idea among conservatives that being gay is a choice, so by that reasoning kids can be recruited into being gay.
- heavyset_go 5y agoIt's a long-standing conspiracy theory that there's a shadowy cabal of LGBT people that are trying to confuse and convert kids into being LGBT themselves, because a new supply of LGBT people wouldn't exist without tricking them into being gay. Which is ironic, considering the prevalence of conversion therapy, but conversion therapy is consistent with their assertion that people are converted into being gay, so it follows that they can be converted out of it. A lot of those same people who believe that are bitter that some teachers are LGBT and are allowed to teach their kids, and legislation that prevents teachers from discussing their lives, the lives of students with two moms or dads, the lives of students who are LGBT themselves, or any kind of LGBT acceptance, is how they're coping with it. That, and creating a defamatory crusade and moral panic against the people they don't like.
- dontcare007 5y ago
- QuikAccount 5y agoThis story is very interesting to me because I don't believe for a second that Disney couldn't step on DeSantis if they wanted to so I'm just wondering what line he has to cross.
- themadturk 5y agoI wonder about the impact to the county. As a self-governing entity, I believe Disney paid for all utilities, roads, etc. in the Reedy Creek Development District (I think that is/was the name). I have heard that now county taxpayers will need to put up and additional $2,000 or more per resident to provide those services at the same level Disney provided them. No doubt this was a political gift to Disney when they promised to bring development to the Orlando area half a century ago, and Disney certainly fulfilled that part of the deal.
- syshum 5y agoI never understand these hysterics about the tax payers have to pick up the additional amount, this is based on the idea that with the dissolving of Reedy Creek Disney will continue to pay the exact same amount of property taxes they do today... I find that it be laughable, and purposefully misleading as well designed political misinformation by people that are politically opposed to the dominant political winds in the state. In reality I expect this to be a windfall for the tax base in a few of the counties (except orange) that have been starved for cash because of Reedy Creek
- echoradio 5y agoFrom a CNBC story [1]: “If the special district is dissolved, Orange and Osceola counties would have to provide the local services currently provided by Reedy Creek. And, the $105 million in revenue would disappear, meaning county and local taxpayers would be on the hook for part or all of the added costs. … “Reedy Creek has bond liabilities of between $1 billion and $1.7 billion, according to the district’s financial filings. Under Florida statute, if Reedy Creek is dissolved, those liabilities are transferred to the local governments — either Bay Lake or Lake Buena Vista, or more likely, Orange and Osceola counties.” [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/21/disney-special-district-florida-taxpayers-could-face-a-1-billion-debt-bomb-if-dissolved.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/21/disney-special-district-flor...
- syshum 5y agoI am aware of the "news" reporting fake information, there is no indication to this story why "105 million" would "disappear", or why Orange and Osceola counties would have to provide services to Disney with out taxing them for the services like every other tax payer. Reedy Creek is a special tax district designed to REDUCE Disney's cost by enabling them to provide some traditional government services themselves and not having to pay the associated taxes to the counties. With the dissolving of Reedy Creek Disney yes Orange and Osceola counties will have to provide service but they are also going to collect additional taxes for those services.
- heavyset_go 5y agoLast time politically retaliatory legislation proposed in Florida made it on HN, it carved out exemptions for, and gave a free pass to, Disney[1]. It's interesting to see just how capricious their politicians can be, but that's what happens when they try to appease populist movements that are driven by one moral panic to another. However, I do think this is a 'doing the right thing for the wrong reasons' situation, as Disney's clearly been given sweetheart deals and privileges from the state that other groups don't get to enjoy. But I could be wrong, though, as I haven't really looked into it that much. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27327027 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27327027
- dijonman2 5y agoI think the reasons in this case are absolutely justified. Disney should stick to entertainment, and stay out of educational curriculums.
- 8note 5y agoI think that's a good reason for you to be imprisoned. Stick to tach, don't talk politics. The first amendment however, does not add an exception for people who don't stay in their lane
- not_really 5y ago
- juanani 5y ago
- JaceLightning 5y ago"I'm willing to take away your rights for your free speech because it disagrees with my world view" Yikes...
- heavyset_go 5y ago
- xyzzy21 5y agoThe authority literally allowed Disney to build nuclear reactors without any state oversight or intervention!! It was a stretch even back in the 1960s but definitely a step too far.
- draw_down 5y ago