5 ms·

This 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 Disne

by _moof 4y ago

This 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 4y ago
It'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 4y ago
its an attack on business first of all
- jmoak3 4y ago
  An 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 4y ago
    [deleted]
krapp 4y ago
... and this is the party people - even on HN of all places - trust to regulate speech on the internet.
FFRefresh 4y ago
I'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 4y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- shitlord 4y 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 4y ago
  [deleted]
- gamblor956 4y ago
  The 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 4y ago
    Logically, 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 4y ago
I 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 4y ago
  You 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 4y ago
    So corporations are people now?
    - SauciestGNU 4y ago
      Either 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 4y ago
This was in the works long before the controversy, the way it is being spun is probably fake news.
8note 4y ago
I think it's good that democratic systems have power over capitalist entities. A more democratic system to do so would be better though
_8j50 4y ago
Free speech is for individuals not corporations.
- olliej 4y ago
  The 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 4y ago
    You 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 4y ago
    The 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 4y ago
  Free speech is for individuals and groups of individuals which include corporations, political parties, religious groups, affiliate groups, social media platforms, the press, etc.
  - _8j50 4y ago
    No, 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 4y ago
Disney 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.

by _moof 4y ago

oliwarner 4y ago

It'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 4y ago

its an attack on business first of all

jmoak3 4y ago
An 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 4y ago
  [deleted]

krapp 4y ago

... and this is the party people - even on HN of all places - trust to regulate speech on the internet.

FFRefresh 4y ago

I'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 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
shitlord 4y 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 4y ago
[deleted]
gamblor956 4y ago
The 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 4y ago
  Logically, 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 4y ago

I 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 4y ago
You 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 4y ago
  So corporations are people now?
  - SauciestGNU 4y ago
    Either 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 4y ago

This was in the works long before the controversy, the way it is being spun is probably fake news.

8note 4y ago

I think it's good that democratic systems have power over capitalist entities. A more democratic system to do so would be better though

_8j50 4y ago

Free speech is for individuals not corporations.

olliej 4y ago
The 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 4y ago
  You 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 4y ago
  The 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 4y ago
Free speech is for individuals and groups of individuals which include corporations, political parties, religious groups, affiliate groups, social media platforms, the press, etc.
- _8j50 4y ago
  No, 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 4y ago

Disney 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.