Really curious to know what all of the free speech advocates here think about Florida using the power of big government to crack down on private companies for saying what they believe.
Discuss…
Freedom of Speech
Posts
Total:
251
I don't like it, but it is an in-kind attack in the context of the culture war.
-->
@Double_R
Out of the loop, which bills are you talking about at the moment? I have been trying to juggle too much stuff lately and must have either missed the news on said bills or it must be something I cannot recall at the moment.
-->
@Double_R
So much for the Disney insurrection. Maybe next time.
I wouldn't call Disney a private company. It's publicly traded.
A company like Disney has a fiduciary obligation to their shareholders. Playing woke politics with other people's money is negligent of that obligation. Woke politics doesn't make you dime on company time.
Board of directors are not entitled to free-speech when their bound by the property rights of their shareholders and their duties to them.
I am strong advocate for free speech but only privately owned companies and people outside of work have free speech.
-->
@Greyparrot
Oh, it's about the Disney thing? Then I would say the OP is deceptive. Disney has had a special privilege for years now that is being taken from it. It isn't a punishment to take away a special privilege. If it was raising taxes above the norm due to speech then that would be a violation of free speech, but to take away a privilege due to feeling like the cooperation is no longer serving the best interest of the state is no any sort of violation.
-->
@Double_R
"Companies" don't believe anything. Their governing constituents do, often as a result of their own bullshit which is in conflict with their fiduciary duties to their shareholders.
Individuals in corporate leadership at Disney made this series of idiotic decisions. Clearly, those individuals are in no position to be entrusted with such responsibility. I'd be pissed if I was a shareholder.
What Ron DeSantis is doing is exactly what he should be doing. One power center is checking another. It is when government and private companies get along too well that we start to see problems, as evidenced by the defense industrial complex.
-->
@coal
And media complex. And education complex.
President Biden on Friday nominated Amy Gutmann, the president of the University of Pennsylvania, to serve as ambassador to Germany, giving a prominent post abroad to an academic leader who hired Mr. Biden for a lucrative university position after the Obama administration.
If confirmed, Dr. Gutmann, who has written books on defending constitutional democracy and human rights, would be the first woman to hold the post. She would take over a position previously held by one of President Donald J. Trump’s most confrontational aides, Richard Grenell, who used the post to spread his brand of combative conservatism in Europe.
In 2018 and 2019, Mr. Biden was reportedly paid more than $900,000 from the University of Pennsylvania to serve as a “professor of practice,” according to financial disclosures. He did not teach any courses there, but a spokesman for the university called the relationship “phenomenally successful.”
“He helped to expand Penn’s global outreach, while sharing his wisdom and insights with thousands of Penn students through seminars, talks and classroom visits,” said Stephen J. MacCarthy, vice president of communications for the university. Mr. MacCarthy added, “He was able to bring prominent world figures to Penn’s campus for forums and conferences to discuss and debate critically important issues.”
Mr. Biden developed a close relationship with Dr. Gutmann, a political science professor, during his years there. Dr. Gutmann was also critical to the creation of the Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement in Washington.
The Biden administration has been slowly rolling out its choices for ambassador posts, eager to show off a diverse list of nominees, not only in terms of gender and race but also in terms of background. In previous administrations, many posts abroad have gone to campaign donors. But the Biden administration has been eager to elevate State Department officials as well, to send a signal to career foreign service officials that they are once again valued.
On Friday, Mr. Biden also said he would nominate Chantale Wong as the United States director of the Asian Development Bank, a position that comes with the rank of ambassador. He nominated two career foreign service officials, Jeffrey M. Hovenier and Virginia E. Palmer, as ambassadors to Kosovo and Ghana.
-->
@CoolApe
I wouldn't call Disney a private company. It's publicly traded.A company like Disney has a fiduciary obligation to their shareholders. Playing woke politics with other people's money is negligent of that obligation. Woke politics doesn't make you dime on company time.Board of directors are not entitled to free-speech when their bound by the property rights of their shareholders and their duties to them.I am strong advocate for free speech but only privately owned companies and people outside of work have free speech.
Private, as in the private sector. These are not government entities, these are agents of the supposed free market.
I’m glad you agree that company executives have no business using the money of their shareholders for political purposes. Perhaps you will join the fight to eliminate corporate donations to super pacs, something people like AOC have been talking about for years.
Curious as to whether you take the same position towards all of those companies making political donations - that if government passed new laws retaliating against them for their political involvement, that this would be ok…?
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Disney has had a special privilege for years now that is being taken from it. It isn't a punishment to take away a special privilege.
Yes, it absolutely is.
The question of whether an adverse action is punishment has nothing to do with what the circumstances were at the outset. The question is entirely about whether the adverse action was taken as a direct result of the action it was responding to.
If I tell my teenage daughter she can go to a party that she has no business going to and then I rescind my permission because she got an F in math, I am in fact punishing her for getting an F in math. I don’t get to pretend it’s not punishment because she should not be going to the concert in the first place.
We can have a reasonable debate about whether Disney should have these special districts, but they’ve had them for decades and it was never a problem for Floridians until Disney spoke up against the new law. But because they spoke up, they lost their privileges. This is the most basic example of retaliation we could even concoct in politics.
What I find absolutely amazing is how fast the political right defends this, having lost all sense of reason and common sense. These are really basic concepts, nothing about this is complicated.
-->
@coal
What Ron DeSantis is doing is exactly what he should be doing. One power center is checking another.
So to be clear, you are ok with government punishing corporations because their executives exercised their right to free speech?
-->
@Double_R
Curious as to whether you take the same position towards all of those companies making political donations - that if government passed new laws retaliating against them for their political involvement, that this would be ok…?
If the company isn't a sole proprietorship, I agree it isn't the place for corporations to make political donations with shareholder money. If it simply was a matter of making a federal and state law against political contributions of corporations, I think it would be justice.
In an idealistic society, corporations would be apolitical and the government would be controlled with citizens instead of lobbyists. However, this isn't the case and people must work in a flawed system. You may believe the Right is cracking down on freedom, but I think it was actually protecting it against Disney if you look at the context of the education bill. The "Don't Say Gay Bill" if your a leftist.
This bill bans sexual orientation instruction in grades k through 3. Since kinder gardeners and 3rd graders shouldn't have any ideas on sexual orientation at this age, it is very inappropriate for teachers to advocate their sexual beliefs. This is about the Leftists' indoctrinating kids at young ages and not about suppressing LBGTQ students to freely express themselves. If Disney thinks it okay to indoctrinate little kids into thinking their gay, I think they deserve to be burned down by Florida.
-->
@CoolApe
more specifically within this context, protecting the rights of parents from being subverted by a company in the private sector using lobbyists.
-->
@Double_R
Parents of the children they are trying to protect from sexual grooming also don't have a voice because the Left is strongly against choice in schools. Free speech would allow a parent to remove their child from teachers who groom.
I'm finding it difficult to be impartial about that witch coven known as Disney and all its conglomerates--in this case, the Disney parks in the Orlando area. DeSantis's action were clearly retaliation against Disney's public support for LGBTQ issues being taught in grade school (not surprising since Disney Media including "ABC" has been pushing LGBTQ imagery for years.) With that said, should a company be able to regulate itself on its own property and make public statements and even withdraw support without being robbed? Yes. So did Governor DeSantis attack Disney's free speech? Yes, he did.
-->
@CoolApe
You may believe the Right is cracking down on freedom, but I think it was actually protecting it against Disney if you look at the context of the education bill.
We can debate what the bill actually aims to accomplish and does, but that’s irrelevant to this. Whether you believe corporations should have free speech is also irrelevant to this. Currently they do, so that’s the framework we are working within.
And within that framework, the Florida government reacted to a company’s condemnation of their actions by stripping them of privileges they have be granted for decades. In the dictionary there is a word for this, it’s called retaliation. Are you ok with this? Yes or no?
This is one of those times where I have become so fascinated but also exhausted. This is really simple stuff and if a Democratic Governor did this I suspect you would be ranting about this way louder than I, and if it happened in another country we would be shaking our heads together at how despicable and corrupt the world is. So why when it is a Republican does this all of a sudden become complicated?
-->
@Greyparrot
Parents of the children they are trying to protect from sexual grooming also don't have a voice because the Left is strongly against choice in schools. Free speech would allow a parent to remove their child from teachers who groom.
The whole grooming thing is such a stupid talking point fueled by homophobia and bigotry. Homosexuals are no more likely to sexually “groom” children than heterosexuals, and teaching kids to respect others regardless of their sexual orientation, as inappropriately as that might be done by some at times, is not grooming.
As far as school choice goes, the left is against it because the solution to a failing school is to fix the school, not to have all of the parents well enough to place their kids elsewhere vacate. This whole thing about picking schools to keep their kids away from learning about racism or the LGBTQ community is new and I must say ironic since it’s all the same people calling others snowflakes who suddenly put all of their political might behind safe spaces for their kids to protect their feelings.
the solution to a failing school is to fix the school,
What if the parents don't want to fix a broken school when there's a working school within driving distance? You can reward a working school just as easily as rewarding a broken school with extra fixing money. Parents should be deciding who to reward.
The whole grooming thing is such a stupid talking point fueled by homophobia and bigotry.
Not really. Kids that are not exposed to sexual concepts at an early age are more likely to be confused and suspicious when a stranger introduces them to sexual themes.
This whole thing about picking schools to keep their kids away from learning about racism or the LGBTQ community is new
Maybe, but this particular cross the Teacher's Union has decided to die upon seems to be a ridiculous one.
-->
@Double_R
Really curious to know what all of the free speech advocates here think about Florida using the power of big government to crack down on private companies for saying what they believe.Discuss…
Do I agree with DeSantis? Yes. Do I think it’s constitutional? No.
However, as a finance major, the Board of Directors is clearly not upholding its fiduciary duties to shareholders by engaging on this issue. I’d argue that shareholders have a better case for suing Disney just based on decisions by the BoD and through them, management. I agree with YYW’s claim that as a shareholder, I’d be furious.
-->
@ILikePie5
From what I understand, Disney has decided to shut the fuck up about this due to recent events.
-->
@Double_R
To be clear, I spoke exactly as I intended.
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Disney has had a special privilege for years now that is being taken from it. It isn't a punishment to take away a special privilege.
I made that same argument against the tendered benefits homosexual marriage, It is flawed when the privilege is in fact a right. Paying less taxes is a right because paying zero taxes is a right. Building the buildings you want is also a right. Equal detriment is still detriment.
Really curious to know what all of the free speech advocates here think about Florida using the power of big government to crack down on private companies for saying what they believe.
Honestly, I don't think Florida has actually considered the impact this decision will have. If not Disney, Orange county will be responsible for providing police, fire, and medical. The county will need to begin maintaining 175 miles of roads and 67 miles of waterways. The county will need to start providing electricity, trash removal, and sewage treatment. Several billion in bond debt will be transfered to the county. Plus, there is also the question of compensation for the infrastructure Disney has built.
I don't really think Florida has thought this through...
That being said, it doesnt seem like Florida is violating any laws... there is no right to a self-governing status for businesses. Basically, Florida has removed a privileged status from Disney. Disney can still voice their opinion though.
If it's such a bad deal for Florida, why is Disney fighting?
Obvious question never asked by partisan hacks.
Why is it that the more an entity makes whether it's a company or a person the less they have to pay to operate? The same people complaining that Disney now has to pay their fair share complain that Donald Trump isn't paying his proper share of taxes. Best way to fix the school is to have the money to throw at the problem and now they do. And if the other parks are getting the same discount whether they've made political statements or not they should be paying their fair share too. No one should be complaining that Disney shareholder should be allowed to get breaks and be rich while complaining about other people having breaks and being rich.
-->
@coal
So to be clear, you are ok with government punishing corporations because their executives exercised their right to free speech?To be clear, I spoke exactly as I intended.
So that’s a yes. Ok, so I’ll be sure to add big government, government retaliation, and anti free speech to my mental profile of you for future conversations.
Irony.
It’s actually not. The liberal push to tax the rich is about raising taxes on *all* rich people in order to raise money for programs that will help out “the forgotten man” that Trump was supposedly all about. Whatever you think about that, no liberals are suggesting the government punish any rich person who dares to criticize what it does.
Why do I have to explain that difference?
-->
@ILikePie5
Do I agree with DeSantis? Yes. Do I think it’s constitutional? No.
So you don’t believe in the constitution? That’s quite a stunning admission.
However, as a finance major, the Board of Directors is clearly not upholding its fiduciary duties to shareholders by engaging on this issue. I’d argue that shareholders have a better case for suing Disney just based on decisions by the BoD and through them, management. I agree with YYW’s claim that as a shareholder, I’d be furious.
If you’re starting off in the position that free speech is not a real thing and that governments have the right to retaliate against companies for criticizing them then I would agree that the shareholders should be furious. But since that has never been a thing in the US, I would point my fury at the government who plainly violated the constitution.
-->
@SkepticalOne
That being said, it doesnt seem like Florida is violating any laws... there is no right to a self-governing status for businesses. Basically, Florida has removed a privileged status from Disney. Disney can still voice their opinion though.
If the government is taking away a privilege you have as a direct response to your criticisms of them then that is by definition, retaliation, which is by definition, a violation of your free speech.