5 ms·

I don't see people going out to defend that. It's the fact that it's naked retribution for not supporting one of their other agendas, which itself is flat out d

I don't see people going out to defend that. It's the fact that it's naked retribution for not supporting one of their other agendas, which itself is flat out designed for political theater.

stuxnet 5y ago
Some call it retribution, others call it reversing a privilege that should not have existed in the first place. I find it most humorous that the ones calling it retribution would generally support this measure if it had been forced on, say, Koch Industries in a red district of a purple state.
- pstuart 5y ago
  So what was the motivation for this then? Some of us are ok with pointing out issues regardless of "whose side" is involved. It would be nice if there were more of us like that. edit: @stuxnet I can't reply to your reply so I'll amend here: I'm not a Disney fan either but that's not the concern being addressed -- it's the "reasoning" behind it and the fact that it fits into a pattern of harassments and intimidation of all who do not support them. Punishing others as political theater is dangerous territory and it only seems to be accelerating. Public officials/applicants are advocating for death to all who oppose them. If that doesn't bother you because you're on the right team then I encourage you to revisit that and examine how that might not be good for society.
  - stuxnet 5y ago
    I'm not particularly a fan of Disney or the Florida legislature so I totally agree with your second point. The point I was trying to make is that regardless of the recent motivations, the end result is that a mega corporation is stripped of privileges that they shouldn't have had in the first place. I would support that in this case and also the other fictional case I presented with Koch Industries. So I guess the point of contention is in the motivation, but that doesn't matter to me as long as the end result is the same.
    - colburnmh 5y ago
      It's your interpretation that Disney should never have had those rights. The state of Florida clearly strongly disagrees with you, given that they have granted the same/similar rights to thousands of entities over more than 200 years (yes, before Florida was even a state). 1800 different active entities currently have special district rights in Florida. I think debating whether special districts should be allowed at all would be a good discussion to have, but it is completely separate from whether what the government did in passing SB-4C is a violation of Disney's (and possibly the Orange and Osceola county taxpayers') first amendment rights.
- WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
  > Some call it retribution, others call it reversing a privilege that should not have existed in the first place. Sure. But rolling back those privileges within an act of overt political revenge - that insures it becomes yet another expensive, taxpayer funded bench-slap. Two of FL's legal money-drains - see FL mention: https://www.project-disco.org/competition/033122-despite-warnings-republicans-poised-to-stick-peach-state-with-steep-legal-tab-for-political-stunt/ https://www.project-disco.org/competition/033122-despite-war... and there's this: https://www.orlandosentinel.com/opinion/scott-maxwell-commentary/os-prem-op-trump-judge-rejects-desantis-florida-law-scott-maxwell-20210713-oyit3hrstnc23b656h4enlxfse-story.html https://www.orlandosentinel.com/opinion/scott-maxwell-commen...
  - stuxnet 5y ago
    Thanks for the links! I agree with you that it's almost certainly related to recent events and probably not the best course of action to save taxpayer money in the short term. To restate my position - I don't believe that Disney (or any other corporation) should ever have the ability to levy taxes in their own special district as that is explicitly a function of government. Instances of political revenge, especially in this day and age, are not rare or limited to one side of the political spectrum. I oppose any attempts to target groups of non-affiliated people (by race, sexual orientation, etc), but can't be too upset when the casualty is a mega corp like Disney.
    - colburnmh 5y ago
      So, your position is that it's OK if it's political revenge against Disney, because they make lots of money? You realize that is a very slippery slope, right? The first amendment confers free speech as a right regardless of your financial status. If you start to erode that right, and say "if you are 'rich' it's OK if your rights are trampled," then the subjective definition of "rich" will just be adjusted to match the person currently in the crosshairs, until one day, the person in the crosshairs is you.
_-david-_ 5y ago
I don't think it was retribution. Most people had no clue Disney had special privileges. Due to the extra eyes on Disney because of their opposition to the Parental Rights in Education bill and the arrest of some Disney employees on human trafficking charges people learned about the special privileges. Once people learned about the special privileges the lawmakers decided to remove them due to the public support of doing it. Doing what the people want is what politicians are supposed to do. I think there would have been calls to remove the special privileges regardless of Disney's opposition to the bill.
- WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
  > I don't think it was retribution. It's retribution. Desantis’ lap dog Rep. Randy Fine says that Disney must be punished for not behaving property. "It’s time for them to remember that we are not CA. They are a CA company. And we are not interested in their CA values here in this state. But here’s the issue, when my 14-year-old or my 10-year-old ask for special privileges? They behave! And they don’t expect those special privileges if they act like jerks. So Disney is learning that they are a guest in this state." ref: https://www.techdirt.com/2022/04/22/florida-republican-govt-officials-bend-over-backwards-to-tell-everyone-that-yes-absolutely-they-are-punishing-disney-for-its-speech/ https://www.techdirt.com/2022/04/22/florida-republican-govt-...
  - _-david-_ 5y ago
    They didn't say it was due to their opposition to this bill but for misbehaving. Disney has been doing quite a bit of things that Floridians don't like. Bringing a young kid on ABC (owned by Disney) to promote transgenderism in prepubescent kids for example. This has been brewing for a long time. Like I said, the bill was the catalyst of this, but not really the reason.
    - WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
      > They didn't say it was due to their opposition to this bill but for misbehaving. Not precisely. They clarified Disney's misbehavior was having "CA Values" in FL. It’s time for them to remember that we are not CA. They are a CA company. And we are not interested in their CA values here in this state. This and other "We're going after Disney" statements were made days/hours after Disney voiced it's objections to the Don't Say Gay bill. The legislators' messaging is fairly unambiguous here. The implication that dissolving RCIC was already destined to happen at this time, that seems disingenuous given that the Governor's staff had - only last year - carved out Disney from FL's unconstitutional SM law.

I don't see people going out to defend that. It's the fact that it's naked retribution for not supporting one of their other agendas, which itself is flat out designed for political theater.

stuxnet 5y ago

Some call it retribution, others call it reversing a privilege that should not have existed in the first place. I find it most humorous that the ones calling it retribution would generally support this measure if it had been forced on, say, Koch Industries in a red district of a purple state.

pstuart 5y ago
So what was the motivation for this then? Some of us are ok with pointing out issues regardless of "whose side" is involved. It would be nice if there were more of us like that. edit: @stuxnet I can't reply to your reply so I'll amend here: I'm not a Disney fan either but that's not the concern being addressed -- it's the "reasoning" behind it and the fact that it fits into a pattern of harassments and intimidation of all who do not support them. Punishing others as political theater is dangerous territory and it only seems to be accelerating. Public officials/applicants are advocating for death to all who oppose them. If that doesn't bother you because you're on the right team then I encourage you to revisit that and examine how that might not be good for society.
- stuxnet 5y ago
  I'm not particularly a fan of Disney or the Florida legislature so I totally agree with your second point. The point I was trying to make is that regardless of the recent motivations, the end result is that a mega corporation is stripped of privileges that they shouldn't have had in the first place. I would support that in this case and also the other fictional case I presented with Koch Industries. So I guess the point of contention is in the motivation, but that doesn't matter to me as long as the end result is the same.
  - colburnmh 5y ago
    It's your interpretation that Disney should never have had those rights. The state of Florida clearly strongly disagrees with you, given that they have granted the same/similar rights to thousands of entities over more than 200 years (yes, before Florida was even a state). 1800 different active entities currently have special district rights in Florida. I think debating whether special districts should be allowed at all would be a good discussion to have, but it is completely separate from whether what the government did in passing SB-4C is a violation of Disney's (and possibly the Orange and Osceola county taxpayers') first amendment rights.
WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
> Some call it retribution, others call it reversing a privilege that should not have existed in the first place. Sure. But rolling back those privileges within an act of overt political revenge - that insures it becomes yet another expensive, taxpayer funded bench-slap. Two of FL's legal money-drains - see FL mention: https://www.project-disco.org/competition/033122-despite-warnings-republicans-poised-to-stick-peach-state-with-steep-legal-tab-for-political-stunt/ https://www.project-disco.org/competition/033122-despite-war... and there's this: https://www.orlandosentinel.com/opinion/scott-maxwell-commentary/os-prem-op-trump-judge-rejects-desantis-florida-law-scott-maxwell-20210713-oyit3hrstnc23b656h4enlxfse-story.html https://www.orlandosentinel.com/opinion/scott-maxwell-commen...
- stuxnet 5y ago
  Thanks for the links! I agree with you that it's almost certainly related to recent events and probably not the best course of action to save taxpayer money in the short term. To restate my position - I don't believe that Disney (or any other corporation) should ever have the ability to levy taxes in their own special district as that is explicitly a function of government. Instances of political revenge, especially in this day and age, are not rare or limited to one side of the political spectrum. I oppose any attempts to target groups of non-affiliated people (by race, sexual orientation, etc), but can't be too upset when the casualty is a mega corp like Disney.
  - colburnmh 5y ago
    So, your position is that it's OK if it's political revenge against Disney, because they make lots of money? You realize that is a very slippery slope, right? The first amendment confers free speech as a right regardless of your financial status. If you start to erode that right, and say "if you are 'rich' it's OK if your rights are trampled," then the subjective definition of "rich" will just be adjusted to match the person currently in the crosshairs, until one day, the person in the crosshairs is you.

_-david-_ 5y ago

I don't think it was retribution. Most people had no clue Disney had special privileges. Due to the extra eyes on Disney because of their opposition to the Parental Rights in Education bill and the arrest of some Disney employees on human trafficking charges people learned about the special privileges. Once people learned about the special privileges the lawmakers decided to remove them due to the public support of doing it. Doing what the people want is what politicians are supposed to do. I think there would have been calls to remove the special privileges regardless of Disney's opposition to the bill.

WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
> I don't think it was retribution. It's retribution. Desantis’ lap dog Rep. Randy Fine says that Disney must be punished for not behaving property. "It’s time for them to remember that we are not CA. They are a CA company. And we are not interested in their CA values here in this state. But here’s the issue, when my 14-year-old or my 10-year-old ask for special privileges? They behave! And they don’t expect those special privileges if they act like jerks. So Disney is learning that they are a guest in this state." ref: https://www.techdirt.com/2022/04/22/florida-republican-govt-officials-bend-over-backwards-to-tell-everyone-that-yes-absolutely-they-are-punishing-disney-for-its-speech/ https://www.techdirt.com/2022/04/22/florida-republican-govt-...
- _-david-_ 5y ago
  They didn't say it was due to their opposition to this bill but for misbehaving. Disney has been doing quite a bit of things that Floridians don't like. Bringing a young kid on ABC (owned by Disney) to promote transgenderism in prepubescent kids for example. This has been brewing for a long time. Like I said, the bill was the catalyst of this, but not really the reason.
  - WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
    > They didn't say it was due to their opposition to this bill but for misbehaving. Not precisely. They clarified Disney's misbehavior was having "CA Values" in FL. It’s time for them to remember that we are not CA. They are a CA company. And we are not interested in their CA values here in this state. This and other "We're going after Disney" statements were made days/hours after Disney voiced it's objections to the Don't Say Gay bill. The legislators' messaging is fairly unambiguous here. The implication that dissolving RCIC was already destined to happen at this time, that seems disingenuous given that the Governor's staff had - only last year - carved out Disney from FL's unconstitutional SM law.