XPost: alt.fan.states.florida, talk.politics.guns, talk.politics.misc   
   XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh   
   From: dei-disney-the-failure@jan6.org   
      
   On 24 Feb 2022, Trump Is A RUSSIAN ASSET  posted some   
   news:sv80dm$1o7k2$3@news.freedyn.de:   
      
   > Disney is about to learn a potentially business ending lesson.  Keep   
   > your opinions to yourself.  Poisonous petty internal social agendas   
   > don't belong in publicly offered products and services.  Budweiser,   
   > Target, Kohls, IBM, Hewlett Packard Enterprise, and every university   
   > in North America should take note and wise up.  Specifically Harvard   
   > should get their disgraceful act together.   
      
   A judge has dismissed Disney's First Amendment federal lawsuit against   
   Gov. Ron DeSantis and others, a decision that could have big   
   implications on corporate speech, especially when it's directed at   
   governments who can punish it.   
      
   DeSantis, with the help of GOP lawmakers, stripped Disney's control of   
   its special taxing district and gave it to himself. The company   
   eventually sued him and that district's new leadership in federal court,   
   saying it was retribution for its public opposition to a state law,   
   called "Don't Say Gay" by critics, which restricts classroom instruction   
   on gender identity and sexual orientation. That punishment of its speech   
   violates the First Amendment, Disney said.   
      
   But U.S. District Judge Allen Winsor threw out the lawsuit on Wednesday,   
   a move Disney is likely to appeal.   
      
   “If left unchallenged, this would set a dangerous precedent and give   
   license to states to weaponize their official powers to punish the   
   expression of political viewpoints they disagree with. We are determined   
   to press forward with our case," the company said in a statement   
   provided to POLITICO.   
      
   Winsor, appointed by former President Donald Trump, cited a lack of   
   standing in dismissing the claims against DeSantis and Alex Kelly, the   
   Florida Department of Commerce secretary. Standing refers to whether   
   someone has the right to sue another.   
      
   "To extent the Governor contributed to Disney’s injury by appointing   
   CFTOD board members, that action is in the past," Winsor wrote. "Because   
   Disney seeks injunctive relief, it must allege an imminent future   
   injury."   
      
   He said the claims against district leadership "are dismissed on the   
   merits for failure to state a claim."   
      
   "Its claims ... fail on the merits because 'when a statute is facially   
   constitutional, a plaintiff cannot bring a free-speech challenge by   
   claiming that the lawmakers who passed it acted with a constitutionally   
   impermissible purpose,'” Winsor wrote, citing a 2015 appellate decision.   
      
   The state had argued in court and legal filings that it didn't matter if   
   the action was retaliatory, citing the same decision.  That had stemmed   
   from a lawsuit filed by the Alabama Education Association, alleging that   
   lawmakers had retaliated against it by passing a law that banned payroll   
   deductions for membership dues in organizations that used "any portion   
   of those contributions for political activity.   
      
   Their argument, which Winsor agreed with, is that if a law is   
   constitutional on its face, it doesn’t matter if it was created for   
   retaliatory reasons.   
      
   "No one reading the text of the challenged laws would suppose them   
   directed against Disney," Winsor wrote. "At the end of the day, under   
   the law of this Circuit, 'courts shouldn’t look to a law’s legislative   
   history to find an illegitimate motivation for an otherwise   
   constitutional statute.'”   
      
   Winsor wrote that it was true that Disney "faces the brunt of the harm"   
   from the law.   
      
   "But Disney offers no support for its argument that the court is to   
   undertake line drawing to determine just how many others a law must   
   cover to avoid 'singling out' those they affect most," Winsor said.   
      
   The district leadership included members of the Central Florida Tourism   
   Oversight District, which was called the Reedy Creek Improvement   
   District before the takeover, as well as District Administrator Glen   
   Gilzean Jr.   
      
   They've already made a lot of changes, some of them controversial, like   
   abolishing the district's diversity, equity and inclusion programs.   
      
   Jeremy Redfern, press secretary for DeSantis, applauded the decision.   
      
   "The days of Disney controlling its own government and being placed   
   above the law are long gone," he said in a statement. "The federal   
   court's decision made it clear that Governor DeSantis was correct:   
   Disney is still just one of many corporations in the state, and they do   
   not have a right to their own special government. In short — as long   
   predicted, case dismissed."   
      
   Disney, meanwhile, has previously warned in filings that a courtroom win   
   for DeSantis would open up the floodgates for speech suppression.   
      
   "If the State’s strategy succeeds, Disney will assuredly not be the last   
   entity punished for espousing disfavored viewpoints," the company wrote.   
      
   This reporting content is supported by a partnership with Freedom Forum   
   and Journalism Funding Partners. USA Today Network-Florida First   
   Amendment reporter Douglas Soule is based in Tallahassee, Fla. He can be   
   reached at DSoule@gannett.com. On X: @DouglasSoule.   
      
   https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2024/01/31/judge-rejects-dis   
   ney-federal-lawsuit-ron-desantis/72426319007/   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)