Citizen United being used to defend Disney over DeSantis attacks.

[pknopp]

I've noted ever since the ruling that it was the correct ruling. That the government has no business going after either individuals or a business because of what they have to say. So tell me, why should a governor be able to attack a business simply because that business has a business model the governor disagrees with?

This is the same thing the lawsuit was brought over in the first place. A group created a movie that showed Hillary in a negative light and some wanted the government to be able to shut them down.

What could be more un-American than that?


When the Supreme Court in 2010 handed down its ruling on Citizens United v. FEC, Democrats were scandalized. Then-President Barack Obama warned it would "open the floodgates" to corporations influencing politics by diminishing restrictions on corporate speech.

But now, as Disney v. DeSantis has become an actual legal battle — with the Walt Disney Corporation suing the Florida governor for retaliating against it after CEO Bob Iger criticized DeSantis' policies — the political roles have reversed. Liberals remain scandalized (albeit for different reasons) but now seek the protections the Citizens United ruling offers.

The Supreme Court's Citizens United decision was a pain in the neck for Democrats. Now, it could be used to their advantage in the Disney v. DeSantis feud.

 

[kyzr]

The reason you're looking for is "decency".

 

[pknopp]

The reason you're looking for is "decency".

Sure, there is nothing decent about the government attacking anyone's free speech rights.

 

[kyzr]

Sure, there is nothing decent about the government attacking anyone's free speech rights.

Most of us want to protect our children from deviates and deviate behaviors in the name of decency and traditional values.

 

[pknopp]

Most of us want to protect our children from deviates and deviate behaviors in the name of decency and traditional values.

You big government types are so transparent.

 

[BULLDOG]

I've noted ever since the ruling that it was the correct ruling. That the government has no business going after either individuals or a business because of what they have to say. So tell me, why should a governor be able to attack a business simply because that business has a business model the governor disagrees with?

This is the same thing the lawsuit was brought over in the first place. A group created a movie that showed Hillary in a negative light and some wanted the government to be able to shut them down.

What could be more un-American than that?


When the Supreme Court in 2010 handed down its ruling on Citizens United v. FEC, Democrats were scandalized. Then-President Barack Obama warned it would "open the floodgates" to corporations influencing politics by diminishing restrictions on corporate speech.

But now, as Disney v. DeSantis has become an actual legal battle — with the Walt Disney Corporation suing the Florida governor for retaliating against it after CEO Bob Iger criticized DeSantis' policies — the political roles have reversed. Liberals remain scandalized (albeit for different reasons) but now seek the protections the Citizens United ruling offers.

The Supreme Court's Citizens United decision was a pain in the neck for Democrats. Now, it could be used to their advantage in the Disney v. DeSantis feud.

Citizens United is a disgusting abuse of our free speech, but it is the law. Might as well use it, at least till it is repealed.

 

[pknopp]

Citizens United is a disgusting abuse of our free speech, but it is the law. Might as well use it, at least till it is repealed.

You want someone like DeSantis to be able to try and destroy a business because he disagrees with their point of view?

 

[j-mac]

You big government types are so transparent.

Yeah, who cares if a child is corrupted and abused for sexual pleasure, right?


Disgusting.

 

[occupied]

Most of us want to protect our children from deviates and deviate behaviors in the name of decency and traditional values.

This has nothing to do with children and everything to do with DeSantis and his massive ego.

 

[kyzr]

This has nothing to do with children and everything to do with DeSantis and his massive ego.

Liar. Prove that Desantis isn't acting on behalf of the majority of FL voters.

 

[BULLDOG]

You want someone like DeSantis to be able to try and destroy a business because he disagrees with their point of view?

Of course not, but desantis is breaking other laws by using government authority to harm a political opponent.

 

[pknopp]

Of course not, but desantis is breaking other laws by using government authority to harm a political opponent.

Perhaps. We tried to make it the law of the land though with the "Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act". And make no mistake, it was not about reforming campaigns. It was about shutting the people out of the process.

Look at how bad Disney has made DeSantis look because legally they can speak up and fight back. Without overturning the law it would have been legal for DeSantis to shut them down.

And you support that in general? Only when the target is your candidate?

 

[occupied]

Liar. Prove that Desantis isn't acting on behalf of the majority of FL voters.

This feud with Disney does nothing to advance your silly war on transgenderism. If anything it makes it look even more spiteful than it already is. Every Florida governor knew one thing, don't fuck with the tourism industry. Someone forgot to tell DeSantis who really runs Florida.

 

[BULLDOG]

Perhaps. We tried to make it the law of the land though with the "Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act". And make no mistake, it was not about reforming campaigns. It was about shutting the people out of the process.

Look at how bad Disney has made DeSantis look because legally they can speak up and fight back. Without overturning the law it would have been legal for DeSantis to shut them down.

And you support that in general? Only when the target is your candidate?

Disney didn't make desantis look bad. Desantis did a fine job of that for himself. You might note the damage to that little trump wannabe was before citizen's united was even mentioned.

 

[pknopp]

Disney didn't make desantis look bad. Desantis did a fine job of that for himself. You might note the damage to that little trump wannabe was before citizen's united was even mentioned.

It's because the law didn't stand and Disney can legally answer back. If the law had stood, DeSantis could have legally shut them up.

 

[easyt65]

Of course not, but desantis is breaking other laws by using government authority to harm a political opponent.

Pot meet kettle.
Irony meter off the chart.
Hypocrisy

Take your pick.

 

[BULLDOG]

It's because the law didn't stand and Disney can legally answer back. If the law had stood, DeSantis could have legally shut them up.

Disney could legally answer back without Citizen's united.

 

[pknopp]

Disney could legally answer back without Citizen's united.

The law that was overturned allowed the government to shut a person or a business down from having a say in politics.

How do you defend that?

 

[BULLDOG]

Pot meet kettle.
Irony meter off the chart.
Hypocrisy

Take your pick.

I would oppose changing to 5 outs in an inning, but I wouldn't grab my glove at only 3 outs. You don't have to like the rules to play by them.

 

[BULLDOG]

The law that was overturned allowed the government to shut a person or a business down from having a say in politics.

How do you defend that?

Not quite what the law says. You should check again.