2 ms·

> but this authoritarian suppression of speech and ideas has just pushed me away from that side completely So as a moderate you prefer DeSantis approach to Dis

> but this authoritarian suppression of speech and ideas has just pushed me away from that side completely So as a moderate you prefer DeSantis approach to Disney, his forbidding of speech in schools, etc.? He's not passing literal anti press and anti speech laws to piss off the MAGA base. It's remarkable to me he so badly wanted props for punishing Disney for exercising free speech he forgot he's supposed to be pro business and anti big government regulation. Suppression of speech has to push you away from far left and far right, so that should cancel out. Then, if you're really prefering all the other policies as you say, you could vote center left ... Or -- vote Forward: "Dozens of former Republican and Democratic officials announced on Wednesday a new national political third party to appeal to millions of voters they say are dismayed with what they see as America's dysfunctional two-party system." "The new party, called Forward and whose creation was first reported by Reuters, will initially be co-chaired by former Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang and Christine Todd Whitman, the former Republican governor of New Jersey. They hope the party will become a viable alternative to the Republican and Democratic parties that dominate U.S. politics, founding members told Reuters." -- https://www.reuters.com/world/us/exclusive-former-republicans-democrats-form-new-third-us-political-party-2022-07-27/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/exclusive-former-republican...

xdennis 4y ago
> So as a moderate you prefer DeSantis approach to Disney It's amazing how things change. In the past the left would have been happy to see the removal of subsidies to mega corporations.
- Terretta 4y ago
  Just to set the record straight, it was not a subsidy. When Orlando papers did the math, they showed it will cost the tax jurisdictions more to provide the services than it cost to waive the taxes and let Disney provide them to itself. Further, Disney is far from the only private town with the same arrangement; it's how Florida does it all over the state any time there's a big enough planned development, because that saves the government money. Republicans should love this, because it proves government services privatized can cost the tax payer less. That narrative was inconvenient to "the right" so didn't get talked about much because then the entire thing would just look astonishingly petty. And "the left" didn't really want to have to talk about how it saves towns money to privatize services. So that whole angle, swept under the rug by 'both sides'. UPDATE After posting this, I just saw this in Financial Times: > Florida prepares U-turn on Disney's 'Don't Say Gay' punishment -- Lawmakers seek compromise preserving theme park operator's right to run private government > By Christopher Grimes in Orlando, Florida (yesterday) Since FT is paywall, found a Reason link: https://reason.com/2022/12/02/is-florida-giving-up-its-fight-against-woke-disney/ https://reason.com/2022/12/02/is-florida-giving-up-its-fight... > In other words, this looks like it was never much more than a pissing match between DeSantis and Chapek, who drew the governor's ire when he sharply criticized Florida's so-called "Don't Say Gay" law that censored discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity in public schools. DeSantis signed the bill into law in March. > Florida has hundreds of special tax districts like Reedy Creek, but DeSantis seized on Chapek's criticism and framed the whole thing as a culture war fight against a corporation that had received special privileges from the state. Chapek's criticism of the new law amounted to "provocation, and we're going to fight back," DeSantis said in April as he signed the law undoing Disney's special status. > But most of that was a wild exaggeration. As Reason's Scott Shackford wrote in April, the special tax and governing status granted to Disney in 1967 aren't so much privileges for the corporation as they are gifts to the local governments surrounding the Walt Disney World resort. If the special status were revoked, Orange and Osceola counties would become responsible for providing mandatory public services—including basic infrastructure like water supplies and emergency services like fire departments, all of which Disney currently self-operates and self-funds within Reedy Creek—to the massive resort. It would effectively put local taxpayers on the hook for essential services that Disney used to pay for itself. > "Any contention that DeSantis is eliminating some sort of 'special treatment' for Disney comes with it the perhaps mistaken assumption that the two counties suddenly in charge of all of this infrastructure will somehow make the park better and not worse. In reality, putting Disney parks at the mercy of two different counties with different laws will be a huge mess for everybody involved, and that's the point," Shackford wrote. "It's not about what's fair or what's best for the citizens in the area. It's about punishing political foes and centralizing government power (a very nonconservative approach) to do so." > Friday's report that lawmakers are preparing to back down from those proposals only seems to confirm that conclusion.
  - 454544545 4y ago
    DeSantis' actions are the will of the people. The only question is whether it's a violation of a corporation's free speech - and when does anyone ever really care about that. Imagine a scenario where a corporation was talking anti-left stuff in a blue state. E.g. immigration, unions, etc. Would the people not be entitled to revoke their special privileges because they don't like what they are saying? This is the real test. I'm actually not sure, but its interesting to flip the actors political affiliation to check for fairness.
    - shagie 4y ago
      > Imagine a scenario where a corporation was talking anti-left stuff in a blue state. E.g. immigration, unions, etc. As if a coffee company HQ'ed in Seattle, WA was going about and trying to do union busting. Or how about a large logistics and e-commerce company HQ'ed in the Seattle and its union busting attempts.
    - voidwtf 4y ago
      The will of the people, are you kidding? Many of DeSantis’ politically motivated actions target counties/municipalities that overwhelmingly voted for a different candidate. The majority of “South Florida” is made up of diverse, densely populated, areas that lean slightly left of center. “North Florida” by comparison is sparsely populated and leans heavily right. Yet, for some reason the state government feels the need to consistently subvert the will of the people by preempting local governments and municipalities. Repeatedly overriding the will of the people in those areas.
      - 454544545 4y ago
        > target counties/municipalities that overwhelmingly voted for a different candidate In this case, it's clearly only an issue a state could deal with. > consistently subvert the will of the people by preempting local governments and municipalities Do you have some examples?
krtpollf 4y ago
Speech by teachers in school isn't free. It is delivered to a captive and inexperienced audience (children). That's why school should focus on teaching skills and not interpersonal issues. Overloading children with 50 genders is just nonsense and confuses them. The same applies to Disney movies for minors.
- 454544545 4y ago
  This is confirmed by Garcetti 2006: > that because his statements were made pursuant to his position as a public employee, rather than as a private citizen, his speech had no First Amendment protection. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garcetti_v._Ceballos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garcetti_v._Ceballos
nonethewiser 4y ago
This rebuttal is irrelevant. Desantis has nothing to do with Twitter here. You're just arguing that he doesn't really believe what he says. Why communicate in words at that point?
454544545 4y ago
The point is that the principle of free speech is far more important than any topic of the day. Enemy of my enemy situation. Everything bad in politics has come from the downward cycle of political parties censoring each other. It takes a lot of courage because the defenders of free speech, to also defend the right for those to campaign for the destruction of free speech. Things become really bad when exceptions are made to restrict the free speech of those campaigning against it. You can see how easily people can fall into the trap though, because humans can only take so much abuse while being attacked by people they are inadvertently helping. Now that Musk is in charge of Twitter, you start to see them take more interest in free speech and the importance of it. > his forbidding of speech in schools Garcetti 2006 - legal free speech only applies to private citizens not public employees. The will of the people of the state should democratically determine what should be taught and what should not. If creationism was to be taught in schools, I would certainly want the right as a private citizen to campaign against my children having to listen to that crap, without being impeded by "free speech" (a good way to evaluate free speech is to think about things you agree with and disagree with and see if you are happy with the law both cases). > DeSantis approach to Disney This is a interesting case indeed. Hacker News at its best when I have an excuse to dive into a case I'm not familiar with. Personally, I think their speech is not being restricted by the new law. And the law is the will of the people. As a voting citizen, would I really want to be denied being able to enact a law because a company complains about it's free speech rights? Probably not. I don't relate as much to a corporation than I do to an actual person - regardless of what the law says. The retaliatory aspect is interesting though - and I would defer to the supreme court for this.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

xdennis 4y ago

> So as a moderate you prefer DeSantis approach to Disney It's amazing how things change. In the past the left would have been happy to see the removal of subsidies to mega corporations.

Terretta 4y ago
Just to set the record straight, it was not a subsidy. When Orlando papers did the math, they showed it will cost the tax jurisdictions more to provide the services than it cost to waive the taxes and let Disney provide them to itself. Further, Disney is far from the only private town with the same arrangement; it's how Florida does it all over the state any time there's a big enough planned development, because that saves the government money. Republicans should love this, because it proves government services privatized can cost the tax payer less. That narrative was inconvenient to "the right" so didn't get talked about much because then the entire thing would just look astonishingly petty. And "the left" didn't really want to have to talk about how it saves towns money to privatize services. So that whole angle, swept under the rug by 'both sides'. UPDATE After posting this, I just saw this in Financial Times: > Florida prepares U-turn on Disney's 'Don't Say Gay' punishment -- Lawmakers seek compromise preserving theme park operator's right to run private government > By Christopher Grimes in Orlando, Florida (yesterday) Since FT is paywall, found a Reason link: https://reason.com/2022/12/02/is-florida-giving-up-its-fight-against-woke-disney/ https://reason.com/2022/12/02/is-florida-giving-up-its-fight... > In other words, this looks like it was never much more than a pissing match between DeSantis and Chapek, who drew the governor's ire when he sharply criticized Florida's so-called "Don't Say Gay" law that censored discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity in public schools. DeSantis signed the bill into law in March. > Florida has hundreds of special tax districts like Reedy Creek, but DeSantis seized on Chapek's criticism and framed the whole thing as a culture war fight against a corporation that had received special privileges from the state. Chapek's criticism of the new law amounted to "provocation, and we're going to fight back," DeSantis said in April as he signed the law undoing Disney's special status. > But most of that was a wild exaggeration. As Reason's Scott Shackford wrote in April, the special tax and governing status granted to Disney in 1967 aren't so much privileges for the corporation as they are gifts to the local governments surrounding the Walt Disney World resort. If the special status were revoked, Orange and Osceola counties would become responsible for providing mandatory public services—including basic infrastructure like water supplies and emergency services like fire departments, all of which Disney currently self-operates and self-funds within Reedy Creek—to the massive resort. It would effectively put local taxpayers on the hook for essential services that Disney used to pay for itself. > "Any contention that DeSantis is eliminating some sort of 'special treatment' for Disney comes with it the perhaps mistaken assumption that the two counties suddenly in charge of all of this infrastructure will somehow make the park better and not worse. In reality, putting Disney parks at the mercy of two different counties with different laws will be a huge mess for everybody involved, and that's the point," Shackford wrote. "It's not about what's fair or what's best for the citizens in the area. It's about punishing political foes and centralizing government power (a very nonconservative approach) to do so." > Friday's report that lawmakers are preparing to back down from those proposals only seems to confirm that conclusion.
- 454544545 4y ago
  DeSantis' actions are the will of the people. The only question is whether it's a violation of a corporation's free speech - and when does anyone ever really care about that. Imagine a scenario where a corporation was talking anti-left stuff in a blue state. E.g. immigration, unions, etc. Would the people not be entitled to revoke their special privileges because they don't like what they are saying? This is the real test. I'm actually not sure, but its interesting to flip the actors political affiliation to check for fairness.
  - shagie 4y ago
    > Imagine a scenario where a corporation was talking anti-left stuff in a blue state. E.g. immigration, unions, etc. As if a coffee company HQ'ed in Seattle, WA was going about and trying to do union busting. Or how about a large logistics and e-commerce company HQ'ed in the Seattle and its union busting attempts.
  - voidwtf 4y ago
    The will of the people, are you kidding? Many of DeSantis’ politically motivated actions target counties/municipalities that overwhelmingly voted for a different candidate. The majority of “South Florida” is made up of diverse, densely populated, areas that lean slightly left of center. “North Florida” by comparison is sparsely populated and leans heavily right. Yet, for some reason the state government feels the need to consistently subvert the will of the people by preempting local governments and municipalities. Repeatedly overriding the will of the people in those areas.
    - 454544545 4y ago
      > target counties/municipalities that overwhelmingly voted for a different candidate In this case, it's clearly only an issue a state could deal with. > consistently subvert the will of the people by preempting local governments and municipalities Do you have some examples?

krtpollf 4y ago

Speech by teachers in school isn't free. It is delivered to a captive and inexperienced audience (children). That's why school should focus on teaching skills and not interpersonal issues. Overloading children with 50 genders is just nonsense and confuses them. The same applies to Disney movies for minors.

454544545 4y ago
This is confirmed by Garcetti 2006: > that because his statements were made pursuant to his position as a public employee, rather than as a private citizen, his speech had no First Amendment protection. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garcetti_v._Ceballos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garcetti_v._Ceballos

nonethewiser 4y ago

This rebuttal is irrelevant. Desantis has nothing to do with Twitter here. You're just arguing that he doesn't really believe what he says. Why communicate in words at that point?

454544545 4y ago

The point is that the principle of free speech is far more important than any topic of the day. Enemy of my enemy situation. Everything bad in politics has come from the downward cycle of political parties censoring each other. It takes a lot of courage because the defenders of free speech, to also defend the right for those to campaign for the destruction of free speech. Things become really bad when exceptions are made to restrict the free speech of those campaigning against it. You can see how easily people can fall into the trap though, because humans can only take so much abuse while being attacked by people they are inadvertently helping. Now that Musk is in charge of Twitter, you start to see them take more interest in free speech and the importance of it. > his forbidding of speech in schools Garcetti 2006 - legal free speech only applies to private citizens not public employees. The will of the people of the state should democratically determine what should be taught and what should not. If creationism was to be taught in schools, I would certainly want the right as a private citizen to campaign against my children having to listen to that crap, without being impeded by "free speech" (a good way to evaluate free speech is to think about things you agree with and disagree with and see if you are happy with the law both cases). > DeSantis approach to Disney This is a interesting case indeed. Hacker News at its best when I have an excuse to dive into a case I'm not familiar with. Personally, I think their speech is not being restricted by the new law. And the law is the will of the people. As a voting citizen, would I really want to be denied being able to enact a law because a company complains about it's free speech rights? Probably not. I don't relate as much to a corporation than I do to an actual person - regardless of what the law says. The retaliatory aspect is interesting though - and I would defer to the supreme court for this.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]