6 ms·

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.

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.
        jtgeibel 4y ago
        I'm really not following your argument here. It seems like you are saying that free speech is an important principle more expansive than what is currently codified in the constitution, but that because some parts of society have "abandoned" this principle (as if there was ever universal agreement on your interpretation of the broader principle) that now even enforcing the existing law would be too ad-hoc and a violation of the principle. This really seems like a throwing out the baby because there are a few remaining drops of bathwater on it kind of situation.
        jtgeibel 4y ago
    - Volundr 4y ago
      > An honest call for freedom of speech would defend it against all censorship, public and private. I cannot disagree with this statement more. What speech you choose to publish and not is a vital part of free speech. If I publish a motorcycle newsletter, and choose to publish a letter to the editor about why Harley's are great, and don't publish another about why Harley's suck that is part of my protected speech. It arguably makes my magazine worse, but that's for my readers to decide. Perhaps they are tired of reading endless articles ragging on Harley's and are pleased to have a publication where they can escape it.
      - colburnmh 4y ago
        And it's not your responsibility to enforce false equivalency, either. You are not required to give equal time to all views. That's one of the ways that disinformation has vaulted into the national dialog so easily: media was offering equal air time to opposing parties and/or viewpoints, even if they knew that one of them was objectively untrue in an effort to be viewed as "unbiased".
- 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...

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.
      - jtgeibel 4y ago
        I'm really not following your argument here. It seems like you are saying that free speech is an important principle more expansive than what is currently codified in the constitution, but that because some parts of society have "abandoned" this principle (as if there was ever universal agreement on your interpretation of the broader principle) that now even enforcing the existing law would be too ad-hoc and a violation of the principle. This really seems like a throwing out the baby because there are a few remaining drops of bathwater on it kind of situation.
      - jtgeibel 4y ago
  - Volundr 4y ago
    > An honest call for freedom of speech would defend it against all censorship, public and private. I cannot disagree with this statement more. What speech you choose to publish and not is a vital part of free speech. If I publish a motorcycle newsletter, and choose to publish a letter to the editor about why Harley's are great, and don't publish another about why Harley's suck that is part of my protected speech. It arguably makes my magazine worse, but that's for my readers to decide. Perhaps they are tired of reading endless articles ragging on Harley's and are pleased to have a publication where they can escape it.
    - colburnmh 4y ago
      And it's not your responsibility to enforce false equivalency, either. You are not required to give equal time to all views. That's one of the ways that disinformation has vaulted into the national dialog so easily: media was offering equal air time to opposing parties and/or viewpoints, even if they knew that one of them was objectively untrue in an effort to be viewed as "unbiased".
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...