For his anti-business, anti-free speech campaign.
What’s that smoke you see? Oh, just Ronny D’s presidential dreams going up in flames. Lol.
Disney now sues DeSantis
-
You mean if only Disney hadn't taken a position on proposed legislation?
ABC and Disney did more than that. It is not their role.Fascinating! What is “their role”? I coupd have sworn corporations were entities endowed with speech rights.
Disney is not a voter in the state of Florida. Disney does not run Florida, nor control Florida.
Disney may certainly communicate with politicians and send appropriate representatives to discuss pending legislation (as indeed Chapek did with deSantis, but did not choose to do with anyone else). It may choose to make aboveboard donations to political causes (which again, Disney did).
Covering it dishonestly (as Disney did via ABC) is over the line and serves no one except a partisan political interest. Stating the bill "should never have passed and should never have been signed into law" is outside the scope of competence of an entertainment company.
-
You mean if only Disney hadn't taken a position on proposed legislation?
ABC and Disney did more than that. It is not their role.
Fascinating! What is “their role”? I coupd have sworn corporations were entities endowed with speech rights.Disney is not a voter in the state of Florida. Disney does not run Florida, nor control Florida.
Disney may certainly communicate with politicians and send appropriate representatives to discuss pending legislation (as indeed Chapek did with deSantis, but did not choose to do with anyone else). It may choose to make aboveboard donations to political causes (which again, Disney did).
Covering it dishonestly (as Disney did via ABC) is over the line and serves no one except a partisan political interest. Stating the bill "should never have passed and should never have been signed into law" is outside the scope of competence of an entertainment company.Lol. Confirmed. Cons suddenly no longer believe corporations have speech rights.
-
You mean if only Disney hadn't taken a position on proposed legislation?
ABC and Disney did more than that. It is not their role.
Fascinating! What is “their role”? I coupd have sworn corporations were entities endowed with speech rights.Disney is not a voter in the state of Florida. Disney does not run Florida, nor control Florida.
Disney may certainly communicate with politicians and send appropriate representatives to discuss pending legislation (as indeed Chapek did with deSantis, but did not choose to do with anyone else). It may choose to make aboveboard donations to political causes (which again, Disney did).
Covering it dishonestly (as Disney did via ABC) is over the line and serves no one except a partisan political interest. Stating the bill "should never have passed and should never have been signed into law" is outside the scope of competence of an entertainment company.How strange. I don’t remember SCOTUS decreeing that corporations only had protected speech rights within their “scope of competence” as determined by internet observers. Perhaps you could detail the passage where you found that restrictive criterion?
-
You mean if only Disney hadn't taken a position on proposed legislation?
ABC and Disney did more than that. It is not their role.
Fascinating! What is “their role”? I coupd have sworn corporations were entities endowed with speech rights.
Disney is not a voter in the state of Florida. Disney does not run Florida, nor control Florida.
Disney may certainly communicate with politicians and send appropriate representatives to discuss pending legislation (as indeed Chapek did with deSantis, but did not choose to do with anyone else). It may choose to make aboveboard donations to political causes (which again, Disney did).
Covering it dishonestly (as Disney did via ABC) is over the line and serves no one except a partisan political interest. Stating the bill "should never have passed and should never have been signed into law" is outside the scope of competence of an entertainment company.Lol. Confirmed. Cons suddenly no longer believe corporations have speech rights.
Not only wrong, but blatantly dishonest.
The citizens of a state have a right to governance by their elected representatives, not by an out-of-state corporation.
-
Lol. Confirmed. Cons suddenly no longer believe corporations have speech rights.
If you were at all honest you'd admit that:
Disney may certainly communicate with politicians and send appropriate representatives to discuss pending legislation (as indeed Chapek did with deSantis, but did not choose to do with anyone else). It may choose to make aboveboard donations to political causes (which again, Disney did).
... are both forms of engagement that have been described as "speech rights."
-
Lol. Confirmed. Cons suddenly no longer believe corporations have speech rights.
If you were at all honest you'd admit that:
Disney may certainly communicate with politicians and send appropriate representatives to discuss pending legislation (as indeed Chapek did with deSantis, but did not choose to do with anyone else). It may choose to make aboveboard donations to political causes (which again, Disney did).
... are both forms of engagement that have been described as "speech rights."Once again, we're all waiting for that part where SCOTUS decreed that corporations only had protected speech rights within their “scope of competence” as determined by internet observers. Perhaps you could detail the passage where you found that restrictive criterion?
It's more than a little strange that you haven't done so yet.
-
Lol. Confirmed. Cons suddenly no longer believe corporations have speech rights.
If you were at all honest you'd admit that:
Disney may certainly communicate with politicians and send appropriate representatives to discuss pending legislation (as indeed Chapek did with deSantis, but did not choose to do with anyone else). It may choose to make aboveboard donations to political causes (which again, Disney did).
... are both forms of engagement that have been described as "speech rights."Once again, we're all waiting for that part where SCOTUS decreed that corporations only had protected speech rights within their “scope of competence” as determined by internet observers. Perhaps you could detail the passage where you found that restrictive criterion?
It's more than a little strange that you haven't done so yet.Remind me again where Disney is either a legislature or an appointed judge.
-
Lol. Confirmed. Cons suddenly no longer believe corporations have speech rights.
If you were at all honest you'd admit that:
Disney may certainly communicate with politicians and send appropriate representatives to discuss pending legislation (as indeed Chapek did with deSantis, but did not choose to do with anyone else). It may choose to make aboveboard donations to political causes (which again, Disney did).
... are both forms of engagement that have been described as "speech rights."
Once again, we're all waiting for that part where SCOTUS decreed that corporations only had protected speech rights within their “scope of competence” as determined by internet observers. Perhaps you could detail the passage where you found that restrictive criterion?
It's more than a little strange that you haven't done so yet.Remind me again where Disney is either a legislature or an appointed judge.
Why would you need to be reminded of that? We're not discussing legislaturesor appointed judges. SCOTUS has determined that corporations have protected speech rights.
So, once again, tell us: where did they determine that these speech rights are limited to a corporation's "scope of competence" as determined by internet observers?
-
Lol. Confirmed. Cons suddenly no longer believe corporations have speech rights.
If you were at all honest you'd admit that:
Disney may certainly communicate with politicians and send appropriate representatives to discuss pending legislation (as indeed Chapek did with deSantis, but did not choose to do with anyone else). It may choose to make aboveboard donations to political causes (which again, Disney did).
... are both forms of engagement that have been described as "speech rights."
Once again, we're all waiting for that part where SCOTUS decreed that corporations only had protected speech rights within their “scope of competence” as determined by internet observers. Perhaps you could detail the passage where you found that restrictive criterion?
It's more than a little strange that you haven't done so yet.
Remind me again where Disney is either a legislature or an appointed judge.Why would you need to be reminded of that? We're not discussing legislaturesor appointed judges. SCOTUS has determined that corporations have protected speech rights.
So, once again, tell us: where did they determine that these speech rights are limited to a corporation's "scope of competence" as determined by internet observers?What I said was:
"Stating the bill "should never have passed and should never have been signed into law" is outside the scope of competence of an entertainment company."
That is an assessment that is beyond their scope of competence. Is Disney a legislature? No. Is Disney a judge reviewing legislation? No.
-
Magnolia doing some interesting gymnastics in order to defend a "conservative" governor using big government to silence free speech.
How exactly did deSantis "silence" free speech? DeSantis spoke with Chapek about Disney's concerns. And deSantis certainly didn't prevent ABC from running some very negative commentary about HB 1557.
You seem to be doing some fantastic bends and twists yourself asserting that a corporation has more right to govern a state than the citizens of that state or the representatives that those citizens have elected.