Florida governor signs bill stripping Disney of self-governing authority | Hacker News Reader

Florida governor signs bill stripping Disney of self-governing authority

news.yahoo.com

46 pointsokasaki75 comments

This is a shockingly explicit attack by the government on the right to free speech. Florida has come right out and said that they are doing this to punish Disney for expressing a position on legislation. If the constitutional right to free speech doesn't mean that someone can criticize a law without lawmakers punishing them, then what does it mean?

its an attack on business first of all

An attack on business is an attack on speech, and shockingly the Republican Party has shown itself to be more than happy to assault both.

The Democratic Party is not perfect and has a long history of this as well, but this instance feels… feral.

I encourage others to vote Democrat for the time being, at least they manage to keep populist leaders from commandeering the party.

... and this is the party people - even on HN of all places - trust to regulate speech on the internet.

I'm conflicted.

On the one hand, I dislike everything about the situation. Government officials using their power to attempt to hurt private companies who disagree with them. The whole narrative behind the bill in question is plain stupid on all sides, from how it's being described by the political opposition to whatever culture battle the bill proposers think they are fighting.

But on the other hand, why the heck does Disney have these special privileges in the first place? How much have they benefited from this special arrangement they were given? I'd be interested in an honest accounting of that.

> But on the other hand, why the heck does Disney have these special privileges in the first place?

It's probably because of the $5B in annual tax revenue from the FL tourism industry (led by Disney).

The special district actually existed so that Disney was financially responsible for improvements made to public lands on their behalf, along with expedited permitting processes.

Now the taxpayers are on the hook for that special district's debt, which stands at over $100 million.

Basically, in attempting to punish Disney, Florida actually ended up giving it a $100+ million subsidy.

Logically, this take seems confusing.

Why wouldn't Disney have been advocating for having this special arrangement revoked themselves if it would have been a $100+ million subsidy for them?

From my admittedly limited understanding of this whole situation, I think local governments are thinking they can create Municipal Service Taxing Units (MSTU) that would pick up the revenue that would be going to pay for the debt.

If I were a betting person, I'd bet on Disney not coming out $100+ million ahead in all this. I would bet that local governments will create taxes for Disney to cover the debt/increased costs they would face.

This all makes for a great news story plot though that people love: "Baddies try to do bad thing, and they end up paying the price for it! Ha!"

I dont view it as that. I would agree if this was a law that did infact "punish" them, however removing exemptions from the law they never should have had in the first place IMO is not "punishment" it is correcting an historic wrong

All businesses should be treated the same under the law by government, Disney should not be treated any different than Acme Entertainment Co.

This is the lesson about "Those in glass houses should not cast stones", Disney was already in a bad spot, and poking the eye of government benefactors is biting the hand that feeds you, them revoking reedy creek is not "punishment" it is justice

You may not view it that way, but Florida lawmakers do. They've come right out and said that this is punishment. And "poking the eye of the government" is precisely the right guaranteed by first amendment free speech protections. We are explicitly allowed to verbally poke the government without fear that it will poke back.

So corporations are people now?

Either they are and this is a free speech violation, or they aren't and we have a lot of people to arrest for bribery.

This was in the works long before the controversy, the way it is being spun is probably fake news.

I think it's good that democratic systems have power over capitalist entities.

A more democratic system to do so would be better though

Free speech is for individuals not corporations.

The Republican Party has staunchly defended the free speech of businesses, up to and including supporting businesses being allowed to force employees to make political speech, and fire employees for political speech they make outside of work hours.

You mean Republicans are hypocritical and take any position which appears to give them political advantage to the point they screw over their own people? Why haven't I heard about this before? /s

The Democratic party has staunchly opposed the idea that businesses are people for the purposes of speech. Desiring to regulate all manner of speech by corporations to achieve their political goals

It is hypocritical now to defend Disney on "free speech" grounds of all things because they happen in this instance to be supporting the democratic party politically

Free speech is for individuals and groups of individuals which include corporations, political parties, religious groups, affiliate groups, social media platforms, the press, etc.

No, rights are for people. Corporations are not groups of individuals but intangible logical entities that groups of individuals use to conduct business. By your logic, revoking the incorporation of a company is equivalent to murder as well? The individuals that own Disney are free to spend their profits however they wish or speak whatever they want like every individual. The ability to use their privilege of being able to conduct business and hire employees to an arbitrary end is not protected. The CEO can say "I hate the president" but the company can be restricted from publishing material to that effect directly or by contracting out the publication to someone else.

Especially publicly traded companies like Disney are not making decisions on behalf of every or majority if their shareholders which changes hands frequently. Any speech made by the company does not directly represent the will of the owners but the execution of the business in it's priviledged and regulated capacity under it's incorporation title and public exchange listing.

Quite frankly, you're completely wrong from a legal standpoint. We have a famous decision from our highest court (one that I very much disagree with by the way) which establishes corporate personhood and the right to free speech for corporations (and establishes that money is speech).

As long as Citizens United stands as good law this action can be seen only as a frontal assault on free speech as it is explicitly defined by the supreme court.

I know about citizens united and I disagree with it, but from what I understand it is not beyond challenge as in the court has changed a bit since then and a challenge by Disney in this case is the only thing short of a constitutional amendment that will resolve the debacle. The law as it is written does not support the citizens united decision, it is judicial law making at best.

> Congress shall make no law...or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; ...

The Citizens united ruling stipulates to wrong things, first that spending money is speech (it is most certainly not!) and that this speech was restricted, it was not, individuals have every freedom to make election contributions, their freedom to make the supposed speech was not abridged. A regulated entity that is not a person was ... well regulated.

The supreme court lacks the authority to declare arbitrary things a person. Are dogs people too? Is restricting them from barking abridging their freedom of speech? Does congress have a right to pass a law requiring dog owners to take measures to keep their dogs from barking loud in public?

It also introduces an unresolvable conflict in that organized religion can influence politics because spending is speech and religious corporations are supposedly people with rights to make donations as they see fit. Congress can't pass a law that establishes or favors a specific religion yet congress can accept campaign donations by the wealthiest religious organizations (not humans) that donate funds to favor candidates that back their religious views, so is congress passing laws favoring a specific religion an excercise of freedom speech and voting rights by corporations that have the same rights as people? We are not required to accept laws that are illogical.

I agree with basically everything you've said here, but I am more pessimistic about the outcome of this case if heard before the current supreme court. While the court seems biased in a partisan manner towards Republicans (for instance, issuing rulings from the "shadow docket" without hearing arguments in a manner that consistently favors Republican interests), it seems unlikely that they would in any way restrict the ability of the rich and corporations to pour money into politics.

One last thought is the the supreme court is essentially unrestricted in its power to interpret law via judicial review. But nowhere in the constitution was the court given power of judicial review. They invented it for themselves in Marbury v Madison. Given that context it seems pretty clear that they can decide who or what are persons in the eye of the law.

They have had some surprisingly non-partisan rulings recently, I am hoping there are some judges who have paid attention to the chaos caused by that ruling and see the error if their ways.

> They invented it for themselves ...

Nailed it on the head. This power they seem to be excercising is not derived from the will if the governed. There are limits to the authority a government has, that is not defined in law but in the people's willingness to tolerate the governments behavior.

For example in Germany resisting arrest is not illegal because the government cannot make laws against basic human instinct while in China the government can treat people like properties.

So you are saying it is wrong to ban National Socialist unlike other socialist from speech? Even it they are the same?

I'm impressed you can still type after reaching so hard.

Disney ran a smear campaign against the government of Florida and advocated against parental rights in education.

So the government of Florida removed Disney's immortal governmental status provided to no other companies. This seems fair to all businesses in Florida.

It's not about free speech. It's about ending a friendship.

It's more like rescinding state aid than punishing them. They're not limiting Disney's ability to express itself.

I'm on Disney's side here, but it's not a free speech issue.

Last time politically retaliatory legislation proposed in Florida made it on HN, it carved out exemptions for, and gave a free pass to, Disney[1].

It's interesting to see just how capricious their politicians can be, but that's what happens when they try to appease populist movements that are driven by one moral panic to another.

However, I do think this is a 'doing the right thing for the wrong reasons' situation, as Disney's clearly been given sweetheart deals and privileges from the state that other groups don't get to enjoy. But I could be wrong, though, as I haven't really looked into it that much.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27327027

I think the reasons in this case are absolutely justified. Disney should stick to entertainment, and stay out of educational curriculums.

I think that's a good reason for you to be imprisoned. Stick to tach, don't talk politics.

The first amendment however, does not add an exception for people who don't stay in their lane

"I'm willing to take away your rights for your free speech because it disagrees with my world view"

Yikes...

The point went over your head.

I wonder about the impact to the county. As a self-governing entity, I believe Disney paid for all utilities, roads, etc. in the Reedy Creek Development District (I think that is/was the name). I have heard that now county taxpayers will need to put up and additional $2,000 or more per resident to provide those services at the same level Disney provided them.

No doubt this was a political gift to Disney when they promised to bring development to the Orlando area half a century ago, and Disney certainly fulfilled that part of the deal.

I never understand these hysterics about the tax payers have to pick up the additional amount, this is based on the idea that with the dissolving of Reedy Creek Disney will continue to pay the exact same amount of property taxes they do today...

I find that it be laughable, and purposefully misleading as well designed political misinformation by people that are politically opposed to the dominant political winds in the state.

In reality I expect this to be a windfall for the tax base in a few of the counties (except orange) that have been starved for cash because of Reedy Creek

From a CNBC story [1]:

“If the special district is dissolved, Orange and Osceola counties would have to provide the local services currently provided by Reedy Creek. And, the $105 million in revenue would disappear, meaning county and local taxpayers would be on the hook for part or all of the added costs.

…

“Reedy Creek has bond liabilities of between $1 billion and $1.7 billion, according to the district’s financial filings. Under Florida statute, if Reedy Creek is dissolved, those liabilities are transferred to the local governments — either Bay Lake or Lake Buena Vista, or more likely, Orange and Osceola counties.”

[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/21/disney-special-district-flor...

I am aware of the "news" reporting fake information, there is no indication to this story why "105 million" would "disappear", or why Orange and Osceola counties would have to provide services to Disney with out taxing them for the services like every other tax payer.

Reedy Creek is a special tax district designed to REDUCE Disney's cost by enabling them to provide some traditional government services themselves and not having to pay the associated taxes to the counties.

With the dissolving of Reedy Creek Disney yes Orange and Osceola counties will have to provide service but they are also going to collect additional taxes for those services.

Are they actually going to collect those taxes though?

I think it's most likely that the services will just disappear

The debt won’t disappear. The taxpayers will have to pick that up.

I've had a difficult time trying to find any context on that part of the ledger for this decision. Most of the stories I've seen are slanted in a partisan direction.

From what I can surmise from this link [1], it sounds like the plan is to create new taxes for it. Here's a snippet from that article:

> Fine acknowledges that the local entities where Reedy Creek lies will pick up the Reedy Creek's debt once the district is dissolved, but says those local governments can create Municipal Service Taxing Units (MSTU) that would also "pick up the revenue that would be going to pay for the debt." He insists that "There's no impact to taxpayers."

[1] https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/disney-stripped-special...

"The total income of the three amusement parks in Disney World is around $17 billion a year." A 1% local sales on this would be $170 million a year. Then you add property taxes.

Ah, but the GOP-run state doesn’t like new taxes. The state doesn’t collect income tax and largely relies on taxing the tourists. Between state tax and county hotel tax, locals are already getting a ~20% cut.

The state is already reeling from losing ~6% of its annual revenue from 2020 and the state keeps growing.

At what point does the third-largest state need to implement state income tax to keep quality of life from becoming third-world? It’s a political third rail.

They would then also be able to tax them more. Let's say very reasonable european style VAT tax of 25% on entertainment services. Instantly billions of free profit to them.

>No doubt this was a political gift to Disney when they promised to bring development to the Orlando area half a century ago, and Disney certainly fulfilled that part of the deal.

And with 50+ years of special status it sounds like Florida fulfilled their part as well.

The Disney of today does not resemble the Disney of then, they're one of the largest media companies in the world. What would be the value in letting them continue with their special treatment?

This story is very interesting to me because I don't believe for a second that Disney couldn't step on DeSantis if they wanted to so I'm just wondering what line he has to cross.

The authority literally allowed Disney to build nuclear reactors without any state oversight or intervention!!

It was a stretch even back in the 1960s but definitely a step too far.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com