3 ms·

That's where we disagree then: if exclude the political bend of the actions, only Disney views the action as "punishment", while to everyone else, it is "fair."

by daenz 5y ago

That's where we disagree then: if exclude the political bend of the actions, only Disney views the action as "punishment", while to everyone else, it is "fair." Is it punishment to remove an unfair advantage? Certainly to the entity benefitting from the unfair advantage. To everyone else, no, it's not punishment, it's a return to a level playing field. If Disney got more special privileges as a result of their speech, nobody would say their rights were violated. If Disney had neutral actions taken as a result of their speech, nobody would say their rights were violated. So the "punishment" aspect is key to making it a violation, but I am making the case that it is not actually punishment, when considering the context of the rest of society.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> if exclude the political bend of the actions Yes, if we exclude the thing that people are complaining about, there is no basis for complaint. Let's suppose the federal government adopted 30 percentage point higher tax rates for everyone who registered as a Republican, donated to a Republican party committee or candidate, or voted in a Republican primary. Now, particular tax rates are not themselves a matter of right, so by the same logic that there is no basis to complain about the political retaliation against Disney since it is not via something that is a matter of right, Republicans would have no valid basis for complaint.
- daenz 5y ago
  I'm not sure I understand the hypothetical. I am against members of any political party receiving unfair privileges. And I would be 100% ok with the removal of those privileges, even if it was an explicit result of that person exercising their free speech. EDIT>> Oh I think I see now, you are comparing the introduction of a special tax hike on a group of people with removing special privileges from Disney. Those aren't the same at all.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    How is an adverse change in government treatment not (aside from motivation) violating a matter of right not analogous to an adverse change in government treatment not (aside from motivation) violating a matter of right in the only way at all relevant to discussion of whether the fact that the issue is not (aside from motivation) violating a matter of right makes an adverse change in government treatment permissible?
    - daenz 5y ago
      >adverse That's the key. I'm arguing that "adverse" doesn't mean "not receiving special unfair treatment."
      - dragonwriter 5y ago
        > That's the key. I'm arguing that "adverse" doesn't mean "not receiving special unfair treatment." “Adverse change” means a change in which the resulting condition is worse for the entity involved than the status quo ante. The justice of either the resulting state or the status quo ante is not relevant to whether the change is adverse. There is no dispute that: (1) Florida intends Disney to be worse off because of this change, and (2) Florida is motivated by Disney's exercise of its First Amendment rights in making this change. This combination is impermissible regardless of any other context, and is absolutely retaliatory regardless of any other context.
        daenz 5y ago
        I think we've both made very clear points, we just continue to disagree. Thanks for being civil.
Volundr 5y ago
> only Disney views the action as "punishment", while to everyone else, it is "fair." I don't think this is true even of DeSantis himself. This action is very clearly being taken to punish Disney for it's free speech.
colburnmh 4y ago
Disney's (and 1844 other entities) special district status is enshrined in Florida state and/or county law. At that point, those "privileges" become legal rights: > RCID operates in accordance with its Charter and Chapter 189, Florida Statutes, The Uniform Special Districts Accountability Act. Additional information contained in legislation. Click here to view the District Charter: https://www.rcid.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/RCID-Charter.pdf https://www.rcid.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/RCID-Charter... Further, the first amendment to the US Constitution grants people (and corporations due to rulings like Citizens United, et al.) the right to publicly voice their opinions (good or bad) about the government's actions without fear of government retaliation, except in very narrow cases where that speech is deemed illegal. This is the real crux of the issue: if this legislation was retaliatory--and there are ample indications that it was in the public record--then the legislation violates Disney's first amendment rights. Whether the corporate rights exist in law for Disney (and other theme parks) is a matter of public record. Whether those rights should be granted at all is a topic worthy of debate, but it actually orthogonal to this particular issue, though they are clearly related. And the harm to Disney and Orange and Osceola counties is that they must transition all of the infrastructure and services that are operated by the RCID to the counties before the dissolution of the RCID on July 1, 2023. On or after July 1, 2023, Disney can petition the government to re-establish the special district. If approved, then Disney and the counties will have to transition the infrastructure and services back to the newly re-established RCID. The time, effort and cost of those two transitions will be born by Disney and the Orange and Osceola county taxpayers and will like run in the 10s to 100s of millions of dollars, with no business, legislative, or regulatory benefit for the expenditure.

by daenz 5y ago

dragonwriter 5y ago

> if exclude the political bend of the actions Yes, if we exclude the thing that people are complaining about, there is no basis for complaint. Let's suppose the federal government adopted 30 percentage point higher tax rates for everyone who registered as a Republican, donated to a Republican party committee or candidate, or voted in a Republican primary. Now, particular tax rates are not themselves a matter of right, so by the same logic that there is no basis to complain about the political retaliation against Disney since it is not via something that is a matter of right, Republicans would have no valid basis for complaint.

daenz 5y ago
I'm not sure I understand the hypothetical. I am against members of any political party receiving unfair privileges. And I would be 100% ok with the removal of those privileges, even if it was an explicit result of that person exercising their free speech. EDIT>> Oh I think I see now, you are comparing the introduction of a special tax hike on a group of people with removing special privileges from Disney. Those aren't the same at all.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  How is an adverse change in government treatment not (aside from motivation) violating a matter of right not analogous to an adverse change in government treatment not (aside from motivation) violating a matter of right in the only way at all relevant to discussion of whether the fact that the issue is not (aside from motivation) violating a matter of right makes an adverse change in government treatment permissible?
  - daenz 5y ago
    >adverse That's the key. I'm arguing that "adverse" doesn't mean "not receiving special unfair treatment."
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > That's the key. I'm arguing that "adverse" doesn't mean "not receiving special unfair treatment." “Adverse change” means a change in which the resulting condition is worse for the entity involved than the status quo ante. The justice of either the resulting state or the status quo ante is not relevant to whether the change is adverse. There is no dispute that: (1) Florida intends Disney to be worse off because of this change, and (2) Florida is motivated by Disney's exercise of its First Amendment rights in making this change. This combination is impermissible regardless of any other context, and is absolutely retaliatory regardless of any other context.
      - daenz 5y ago
        I think we've both made very clear points, we just continue to disagree. Thanks for being civil.

Volundr 5y ago

> only Disney views the action as "punishment", while to everyone else, it is "fair." I don't think this is true even of DeSantis himself. This action is very clearly being taken to punish Disney for it's free speech.

colburnmh 4y ago

Disney's (and 1844 other entities) special district status is enshrined in Florida state and/or county law. At that point, those "privileges" become legal rights: > RCID operates in accordance with its Charter and Chapter 189, Florida Statutes, The Uniform Special Districts Accountability Act. Additional information contained in legislation. Click here to view the District Charter: https://www.rcid.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/RCID-Charter.pdf https://www.rcid.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/RCID-Charter... Further, the first amendment to the US Constitution grants people (and corporations due to rulings like Citizens United, et al.) the right to publicly voice their opinions (good or bad) about the government's actions without fear of government retaliation, except in very narrow cases where that speech is deemed illegal. This is the real crux of the issue: if this legislation was retaliatory--and there are ample indications that it was in the public record--then the legislation violates Disney's first amendment rights. Whether the corporate rights exist in law for Disney (and other theme parks) is a matter of public record. Whether those rights should be granted at all is a topic worthy of debate, but it actually orthogonal to this particular issue, though they are clearly related. And the harm to Disney and Orange and Osceola counties is that they must transition all of the infrastructure and services that are operated by the RCID to the counties before the dissolution of the RCID on July 1, 2023. On or after July 1, 2023, Disney can petition the government to re-establish the special district. If approved, then Disney and the counties will have to transition the infrastructure and services back to the newly re-established RCID. The time, effort and cost of those two transitions will be born by Disney and the Orange and Osceola county taxpayers and will like run in the 10s to 100s of millions of dollars, with no business, legislative, or regulatory benefit for the expenditure.