Citizen United being used to defend Disney over DeSantis attacks.

[pknopp]

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

I know what it says. Why do you think the lawsuit was brought? The government attempting to shut down an opinion from a group outside the political parties.

Why do you think the ACLU was a party to the lawsuit?

 

[BULLDOG]

I know what it says. Why do you think the lawsuit was brought? The government attempting to shut down an opinion from a group outside the political parties.

Why do you think the ACLU was a party to the lawsuit?

Not what the law says, but you can be wrong if you want to.

Disney has a winning argument when it claims that the new district’s abrogation of contracts violates the “Contracts Clause” of the Constitution. That clause prohibits a state from passing a law “impairing the Obligation of Contracts.” When it comes to contracts made with the state itself, the Supreme Court has held that any interference must be “necessary” to serve an “important” governmental purpose. The governmental purpose here — as repeatedly articulated by DeSantis and other Florida Republicans — was to retaliate against Disney for its “woke” politics. Far from being “important,” that governmental purpose is legally impermissible.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

This is a lie.

There’s nothing ‘deviant’ about being gay and transgender, and neither pose a threat to children.

It’s about the fear, ignorance, bigotry and hate of the authoritarian right.

It’s neither the role nor responsibility to government to interfere with private companies; Disney is at liberty to be critical of Republicans’ fear, ignorance, bigotry, and hate directed at gay and transgender Americans.

 

[pknopp]

Not what the law says, but you can be wrong if you want to.

Disney has a winning argument when it claims that the new district’s abrogation of contracts violates the “Contracts Clause” of the Constitution. That clause prohibits a state from passing a law “impairing the Obligation of Contracts.” When it comes to contracts made with the state itself, the Supreme Court has held that any interference must be “necessary” to serve an “important” governmental purpose. The governmental purpose here — as repeatedly articulated by DeSantis and other Florida Republicans — was to retaliate against Disney for its “woke” politics. Far from being “important,” that governmental purpose is legally impermissible.

DeSantis is a moron. I'm not arguing otherwise. The law was enacted to shut up voices outside the system. Why do you support that?

Why do you think the ACLU sided with C.U.?

You can avoid the questions again if you want I suppose.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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.

TERRIBLE ruling.

What kind of morons support giving big business a louder voice than everyday citizens.

Asinine

 

[pknopp]

TERRIBLE ruling.

What kind of morons support giving big business a louder voice than everyday citizens.

Asinine

The law shut down everyday citizens. Kerry was crying to get those known as the Swiftboaters shut down. They were not a big business. They were just people with a beef over Kerry's past actions.

The people with the Hillary movie weren't a big business. We can see a pattern though why you supported the law. Don't want anyone saying anything negative about your candidate.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

The law shut down everyday citizens. Kerry was crying to get those known as the Swiftboaters shut down. They were not a big business. They were just people with a beef over Kerry's past actions.

The people with the Hillary movie weren't a big business. We can see a pattern though why you supported the law. Don't want anyone saying anything negative about your candidate.

Disney is BIG BUSINESS and using this law to protect their trolling of America is GARBAGE.

Again I will say it

CITIZENS UNITED
IS
AN
AWFUL
DECISION

 

[PredFan]

The gift of being able to act as your own governing board is a privilege that no other business in the State and likely in the whole country enjoys. It is perfectly within the right of the state to revoke that privilege. In order for The Mouse House to be successful here, they would have to prove that the Governor did this solely to punish them for their political opinions. That's going to be a hard sell.

And calm down you wingnuts, it's not going to destroy the company.

 

[pknopp]

Disney is BIG BUSINESS and using this law to protect their trolling of America is GARBAGE.

Again I will say it

CITIZENS UNITED
IS
AN
AWFUL
DECISION

Even Bush as dumb as he was, was able to understand the law was unconstitutional. Not actually being in actual control he signed it anyway, noting that the courts would sort it out. They did.

 

[pknopp]

The gift of being able to act as your own governing board is a privilege that no other business in the State and likely in the whole country enjoys. It is perfectly within the right of the state to revoke that privilege. In order for The Mouse House to be successful here, they would have to prove that the Governor did this solely to punish them for their political opinions. That's going to be a hard sell.

And calm down you wingnuts, it's not going to destroy the company.

It was said that Dominion had a hard sell in suing Fox.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

No, that wasn’t the issue in Citizens United.

The case concerned the regulation of political speech by the FEC, placing limits and restrictions on partisan campaign finance and advocacy during elections.

The law prohibited such advocacy shortly before and during elections, and only during elections; corporations were otherwise at liberty to finance campaigns and engage in partisan speech.

DeSantis’ un-Constitutional attack of Disney would still be a First Amendment violation absent Citizens United – an example of a lawless effort by Republicans to preempt speech because of its content by seeking to use the authority of the state to disadvantage Disney.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Disney could legally answer back without Citizen's united.

Correct.

 

[Blaster]

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

It happens all the time.

 

[AsherN]

The gift of being able to act as your own governing board is a privilege that no other business in the State and likely in the whole country enjoys. It is perfectly within the right of the state to revoke that privilege. In order for The Mouse House to be successful here, they would have to prove that the Governor did this solely to punish them for their political opinions. That's going to be a hard sell.

And calm down you wingnuts, it's not going to destroy the company.

There are 1,844 special districts in Florida. Notables are: The Villages, Orlando Airport, Daytona Beach Racing Authorithy.

 

[pknopp]

No, that wasn’t the issue in Citizens United.

The case concerned the regulation of political speech by the FEC, placing limits and restrictions on partisan campaign finance and advocacy during elections.

The law prohibited such advocacy shortly before and during elections, and only during elections; corporations were otherwise at liberty to finance campaigns and engage in partisan speech.

DeSantis’ un-Constitutional attack of Disney would still be a First Amendment violation absent Citizens United – an example of a lawless effort by Republicans to preempt speech because of its content by seeking to use the authority of the state to disadvantage Disney.

C.U. was overturned on 1st Amendment issues. If the law had stood, those issues no longer exist. You seem to not understand that the law was overturned on the same first amendment issues.

Politicians stating that anyone other than politicians should have no say on the run up to an election is a huge violation of the 1st Amendment.

For the 3rd time. Why do you think the ACLU sided with overturning the law?

Abortion is a major issue right now. Do you believe Planned Parenthood should be shut down from the political process on the lead up to an election?

 

[pknopp]

It happens all the time.

And I consistently condemn it.

 

[Blaster]

And I consistently condemn it.

The government doesn't care about your opinion.

 

[pknopp]

The government doesn't care about your opinion.

They don't. They do care when people start burning things down though. Luckily the Supreme Court did care.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I know what it says. Why do you think the lawsuit was brought? The government attempting to shut down an opinion from a group outside the political parties.

Why do you think the ACLU was a party to the lawsuit?

Because DeSantis and Florida Republican have committed a clear First Amendment violation absent Citizens United.

A more on-point example would be Disney financing anti-DeSantis ads when DeSantis was running for reelection and DeSantis attacking and threating Disney in an effort to stop Disney from running the anti-DeSantis ads.

 

[pknopp]

Because DeSantis and Florida Republican have committed a clear First Amendment violation absent Citizens United.

A more on-point example would be Disney financing anti-DeSantis ads when DeSantis was running for reelection and DeSantis attacking and threating Disney in an effort to stop Disney from running the anti-DeSantis ads.

Which if the law had stood, he could have done. You are good with that? (noted, my questions are still not answered)