7 ms·

The idea that a corporate entity gets to have a say, politically speaking, when they don't even pay taxes is abhorrent. Equality looks like oppression to those

The idea that a corporate entity gets to have a say, politically speaking, when they don't even pay taxes is abhorrent. Equality looks like oppression to those who are privileged. And make no mistake, Disney is privileged; they don't pay state taxes. What's authoritarian is influencing Florida's policies while not being subject to Florida's policies. "Rules for thee, but not for me." Equalizing the field is fair game. If they want their free speech, they need to pay for it like the rest of us.

leereeves 4y ago
Yeah, the left is making a big mistake here, defending a company town in the 21st century. This special district should never have existed in the first place.
- somebehemoth 4y ago
  Regardless of whether Disney should have ever gotten this deal, the taking away of the deal is unconstitutional because it is punishing free speech. That's it. This is not a "left" thing. It is a Constitution thing. I can both dislike Disney and believe this move was unconstitutional at the same time.
  - leereeves 4y ago
    It's so strange to see the left concerned about free speech. Is that concern really about the principle, or is it purely partisan?
    - jtgeibel 4y ago
      It's almost as if the constitution binds the Florida government while not binding businesses like Twitter. It isn't strange at all when you don't conflate two different concepts. It is strange that the entirely of "the left" takes the blame for private actions taken by business, which is then used as some strange "well they started it" reaction by Republican lawmakers to do a much more egregious version of exactly what they repeatedly claim they are against.
      - leereeves 4y ago
        That's a very important legal distinction, but it's absolutely irrelevant to the principle. An honest call for freedom of speech would defend it against all censorship, public and private. Indeed, between the two, I find censorship by private "oligarchs" more threatening. Public officials come and go, but the oligarchs remain. (Edit in response to Volundr: We're not talking about small magazines about Harleys here. Someone who has billions of users and power that rivals governments and changes the outcome of elections must be prevented from abusing that power.)
        jtgeibel 4y ago
        Even if we ignore the legal distinction here, you seem to be arguing that it is fine to abandon this principle in this particular case. You've even framed this as "[T]he left is making a big mistake here, defending a company town in the 21st century." It's almost like the rules are set so that the left can never win. When the right's actions blatantly violate the principle of free speech, rather than accept the newly shared common ground with the left and actually defend the principle, it is spun as a bad thing.
        leereeves 4y ago
        The principle was abandoned a long time ago. I'd love to see a renewed commitment to the principle, but not on an ad hoc basis, case by case, only when it serves someone's interests. An ad hoc call for free speech is not a call for free speech at all. Edit in response to below: The courts will enforce the law without any input from us. We can only wait and see what they do, if anything. So I'm not discussing that, I'm discussing the hypocrisy in advocating for the principle only when it suits you. Second edit: It's possible that people simply have different interpretations of the principle, but if that was the case, I'd expect to see a lot more objections to schools that force mandatory ideology on their students, failing them if they disagree; more objections to Canada and European countries when they punish people for their expression; and fewer concerns about Musk taking over Twitter. What I see instead is people who only call for free speech to defend speech they agree with. Which, as I said before, isn't free speech at all.
    - SauciestGNU 4y ago
      It's so strange to see the right concerned about corporate personhood. Swipes like that don't advance the conversation though. What I do think is that this is the first major case of a fascist pushing the limits of the first amendment. The revocation of the special status was explicitly a direct consequence of Disney's protected speech. I also believe that corporations should not govern. I would support revoking this district for basically any other reason. But that this targeted punishment due to the content of speech is undeniable, both because of desantis' statements and because The Villages, another special district that is very conservative did not have its status revoked.
      - usrn 4y ago
        Libertarians are moderates and not part of the Right. They only look like part of the Right because we have no actual far right groups in the US and because of our tradition of liberty. If you talk to literal fascists they don't like corporate personhood either.
        leereeves 4y ago
        This isn't about corporate personhood anyway. That's the legal notion that corporations have the same rights as real people, but the special district would still be objectionable if a real person had been allowed to set up their own private local government.
        SauciestGNU 4y ago
        And I agree with that. What I don't agree with is why this is happening. And even if we look past this particular instance, should we not also be dissolving The Villages and whatever other special districts exist? Why just this one that opposes the Governor?
    - klyrs 4y ago
      The left, as I know it, is concerned about the entire first amendment. Free speech Free press Freedom of association Freedom of religion Non-establishment of religion That folks paint the first amendment as "free speech" and stop there is problematic. To deny that anti-lgbt and anti-abortion legislation is motivated by anything but deeply held and oft-cited religious belief is dishonest. If the politicians pushing this crap were Muslim, there would be a deafening outcry about Sharia law. Since it's Christian law, it's a partisan issue. This isn't just a free speech issue, it's an every last word of the first amendment issue (well, okay, this doesn't really touch on the free press).
  - daenz 4y ago
    If there was a law that said "white people get 10% off of every purchase." If it was being repealed for some politically motivated reason, and white people said "I am being harmed!" would you agree with them? Or would you say "that law was unjust to everyone else, there is no harm to you."
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > If there was a law that said "white people get 10% off of every purchase." If a state had such a law would be pretty clearly unconstitutional ab initio. > If it was being repealed for some politically motivated reason, and white people said "I am being harmed!" would you agree with them? Assuming the law not only existed on the books but was enforced by the state prior to the repeal, yes, they would obviously be being harmed for an unconstitutional purpose in violation of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. (If any remedy was available, it wouldn't involve preserving the policy, because that policy is a violation of other people's Constitutional rights, but since we haven't been discussing remedies in the Florida case and no one has argued that the special district exceeds Florida’s Constitutional power, that aspect of the hypothetical is not relevant to the discussion.)
    - colburnmh 4y ago
      Laws are never enacted or repealed without some politically motivated reason. And every time a law is enacted or repealed there are winners and losers, be it politically, socially, financially, or whatever. I'm not sure the point you are trying to make, but, you are not currently making a good argument to defend it.
  - denton-scratch 4y ago
    Well, it's allegedly a punishment for exercising speech (I mean, it looks like that, but I doubt that's enough to win a constitution case). The smoking gun would be a leaked text from De Santis saying "We'll get the woke bastards. We'll take away their special district." But I don't think any evidence has emerged yet showing that was indeed his motivation. Having said that, it was voted through by Florida lawmakers; it would only take a handful of loudmouth politicians saying to camera "See? We're winning the war on woke at Disney!" for a plausible case to start emerging.
    - trafficante 4y ago
      Florida’s Lt Gov was on Newsmax a few days ago [1] and was asked if they’d consider allowing Disney to maintain special district status should they change their political position. He responded in the affirmative. [1] https://mobile.twitter.com/justinbaragona/status/1517245466433527809 https://mobile.twitter.com/justinbaragona/status/15172454664...
colburnmh 4y ago
What taxes does Disney fail to pay? They actually are taxed at a much higher rate than Florida law would allow if they did not have the rights conferred to them as part of an independent special district. Disney paid more than $780 million in state and local taxes in FY 2021. However, even ignoring that, your premise is still fundamentally flawed: Every citizen has rights afforded to them via the first amendment to representation and to redress the government for grievances, regardless of how much they pay in taxes. And corporations have some status as a person, so they share those same rights. I agree that corporations sometimes don't pay their fair share of taxes. However, that does not seem to be the case with Disney, at least in this particular instance. And it's actually a bad-faith deflection from the real issue of the violation of Disney's first amendment rights against government retaliation for voicing opposition to the "Parental Rights in Education" bill (now law).

leereeves 4y ago

Yeah, the left is making a big mistake here, defending a company town in the 21st century. This special district should never have existed in the first place.

somebehemoth 4y ago
Regardless of whether Disney should have ever gotten this deal, the taking away of the deal is unconstitutional because it is punishing free speech. That's it. This is not a "left" thing. It is a Constitution thing. I can both dislike Disney and believe this move was unconstitutional at the same time.
- leereeves 4y ago
  It's so strange to see the left concerned about free speech. Is that concern really about the principle, or is it purely partisan?
  - jtgeibel 4y ago
    It's almost as if the constitution binds the Florida government while not binding businesses like Twitter. It isn't strange at all when you don't conflate two different concepts. It is strange that the entirely of "the left" takes the blame for private actions taken by business, which is then used as some strange "well they started it" reaction by Republican lawmakers to do a much more egregious version of exactly what they repeatedly claim they are against.
    - leereeves 4y ago
      That's a very important legal distinction, but it's absolutely irrelevant to the principle. An honest call for freedom of speech would defend it against all censorship, public and private. Indeed, between the two, I find censorship by private "oligarchs" more threatening. Public officials come and go, but the oligarchs remain. (Edit in response to Volundr: We're not talking about small magazines about Harleys here. Someone who has billions of users and power that rivals governments and changes the outcome of elections must be prevented from abusing that power.)
      - jtgeibel 4y ago
        Even if we ignore the legal distinction here, you seem to be arguing that it is fine to abandon this principle in this particular case. You've even framed this as "[T]he left is making a big mistake here, defending a company town in the 21st century." It's almost like the rules are set so that the left can never win. When the right's actions blatantly violate the principle of free speech, rather than accept the newly shared common ground with the left and actually defend the principle, it is spun as a bad thing.
        leereeves 4y ago
        The principle was abandoned a long time ago. I'd love to see a renewed commitment to the principle, but not on an ad hoc basis, case by case, only when it serves someone's interests. An ad hoc call for free speech is not a call for free speech at all. Edit in response to below: The courts will enforce the law without any input from us. We can only wait and see what they do, if anything. So I'm not discussing that, I'm discussing the hypocrisy in advocating for the principle only when it suits you. Second edit: It's possible that people simply have different interpretations of the principle, but if that was the case, I'd expect to see a lot more objections to schools that force mandatory ideology on their students, failing them if they disagree; more objections to Canada and European countries when they punish people for their expression; and fewer concerns about Musk taking over Twitter. What I see instead is people who only call for free speech to defend speech they agree with. Which, as I said before, isn't free speech at all.
  - SauciestGNU 4y ago
    It's so strange to see the right concerned about corporate personhood. Swipes like that don't advance the conversation though. What I do think is that this is the first major case of a fascist pushing the limits of the first amendment. The revocation of the special status was explicitly a direct consequence of Disney's protected speech. I also believe that corporations should not govern. I would support revoking this district for basically any other reason. But that this targeted punishment due to the content of speech is undeniable, both because of desantis' statements and because The Villages, another special district that is very conservative did not have its status revoked.
    - usrn 4y ago
      Libertarians are moderates and not part of the Right. They only look like part of the Right because we have no actual far right groups in the US and because of our tradition of liberty. If you talk to literal fascists they don't like corporate personhood either.
      - leereeves 4y ago
        This isn't about corporate personhood anyway. That's the legal notion that corporations have the same rights as real people, but the special district would still be objectionable if a real person had been allowed to set up their own private local government.
        SauciestGNU 4y ago
        And I agree with that. What I don't agree with is why this is happening. And even if we look past this particular instance, should we not also be dissolving The Villages and whatever other special districts exist? Why just this one that opposes the Governor?
  - klyrs 4y ago
    The left, as I know it, is concerned about the entire first amendment. Free speech Free press Freedom of association Freedom of religion Non-establishment of religion That folks paint the first amendment as "free speech" and stop there is problematic. To deny that anti-lgbt and anti-abortion legislation is motivated by anything but deeply held and oft-cited religious belief is dishonest. If the politicians pushing this crap were Muslim, there would be a deafening outcry about Sharia law. Since it's Christian law, it's a partisan issue. This isn't just a free speech issue, it's an every last word of the first amendment issue (well, okay, this doesn't really touch on the free press).
- daenz 4y ago
  If there was a law that said "white people get 10% off of every purchase." If it was being repealed for some politically motivated reason, and white people said "I am being harmed!" would you agree with them? Or would you say "that law was unjust to everyone else, there is no harm to you."
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > If there was a law that said "white people get 10% off of every purchase." If a state had such a law would be pretty clearly unconstitutional ab initio. > If it was being repealed for some politically motivated reason, and white people said "I am being harmed!" would you agree with them? Assuming the law not only existed on the books but was enforced by the state prior to the repeal, yes, they would obviously be being harmed for an unconstitutional purpose in violation of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. (If any remedy was available, it wouldn't involve preserving the policy, because that policy is a violation of other people's Constitutional rights, but since we haven't been discussing remedies in the Florida case and no one has argued that the special district exceeds Florida’s Constitutional power, that aspect of the hypothetical is not relevant to the discussion.)
  - colburnmh 4y ago
    Laws are never enacted or repealed without some politically motivated reason. And every time a law is enacted or repealed there are winners and losers, be it politically, socially, financially, or whatever. I'm not sure the point you are trying to make, but, you are not currently making a good argument to defend it.
- denton-scratch 4y ago
  Well, it's allegedly a punishment for exercising speech (I mean, it looks like that, but I doubt that's enough to win a constitution case). The smoking gun would be a leaked text from De Santis saying "We'll get the woke bastards. We'll take away their special district." But I don't think any evidence has emerged yet showing that was indeed his motivation. Having said that, it was voted through by Florida lawmakers; it would only take a handful of loudmouth politicians saying to camera "See? We're winning the war on woke at Disney!" for a plausible case to start emerging.
  - trafficante 4y ago
    Florida’s Lt Gov was on Newsmax a few days ago [1] and was asked if they’d consider allowing Disney to maintain special district status should they change their political position. He responded in the affirmative. [1] https://mobile.twitter.com/justinbaragona/status/1517245466433527809 https://mobile.twitter.com/justinbaragona/status/15172454664...

colburnmh 4y ago

What taxes does Disney fail to pay? They actually are taxed at a much higher rate than Florida law would allow if they did not have the rights conferred to them as part of an independent special district. Disney paid more than $780 million in state and local taxes in FY 2021. However, even ignoring that, your premise is still fundamentally flawed: Every citizen has rights afforded to them via the first amendment to representation and to redress the government for grievances, regardless of how much they pay in taxes. And corporations have some status as a person, so they share those same rights. I agree that corporations sometimes don't pay their fair share of taxes. However, that does not seem to be the case with Disney, at least in this particular instance. And it's actually a bad-faith deflection from the real issue of the violation of Disney's first amendment rights against government retaliation for voicing opposition to the "Parental Rights in Education" bill (now law).