I totally agree with what co-blogger David Henderson wrote about the scandalous attack of the government of Florida against a private corporation doing business there, employing individuals who live there, and certainly having shareholders there. David beat me to the topic, but let me add or emphasize a few points.
As far as we know, the Florida legislature adopted a “law” precisely to punish the Walt Disney Company for not thinking correctly (“Florida Senate Passes Bill to Eliminate Disney’s Special Tax District,” Wall Street Journal, April 20, 2022). The Act relating to independent special districts will abolish a number of what are also called “special tax districts,” including that of Disney. These special districts operate like municipal governments. They pay most local taxes to themselves but also finance much of the district’s public services such as roads and fire protection. A special district also receives local taxes from other businesses (such as hotels).
Last week, the Wall Street Journal explained (Disney Faces Backlash in Florida Amid ‘Don’t Say Gay’ Controversy: Politicians Threaten to Strip the Company of Mickey Mouse Copyright, Special Tax Status for Walt Disney World, as Parents Protest in Orlando,” April 15):
Some Republican lawmakers in Florida are threatening to end a special tax district that has allowed the company to effectively govern the land on which Walt Disney World sits for decades. Members of Congress have called for Disney to be stripped of its original Mickey Mouse copyright.
Friedrich Hayek, the 1974 winner of the Nobel Prize in economics, would certainly say that the affair shows how far we are on “the road to serfdom,” to use the title of his 1944 book. Many strands of government intervention converged towards the worrying outcome.
The event that triggered the whole thing looks like a tempest in a teapot. It was the Act relating to parental rights in education, which the State of Florida adopted last month. As the Wall Street Journal notes in an April 21 editorial, the gist of the law lies in its section 3:
Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.
After all, it seems that the mission of public schools is not to indoctrinate five-year-olds or nine-year-olds into fashionable sexual theories. The law does not, except perhaps in this context, impose a “don’t say gay” mandate.
As The Economist noted, the new law also requires schools to notify parents of any “monitoring related to the student’s mental, emotional or physical health or well-being.” It also give the parents “the option to withhold consent or decline any specific service” in this regard. Nothing objectionable there.
One may fear that the law will eventually be interpreted differently and drift into something else. A libertarian or classical liberal can only sympathize with this fear, which has been so often vindicated. But the danger seems less pressing here than in the million (literally) other prohibitions and obligations that federal laws and regulations impose, not counting local and state laws.
Public schools cannot avoid echoing some values generally accepted in a society, although this should be done intelligently. It should not prevent a child from learning to think for himself or herself. And parents who don’t like these values, should be free—and, in America, are largely free—to send their children to private schools or even to homeschool them.
In a context where corporations are bullied by woke and other “social” activists, Walt Disney’s management tried to resist being involved in the debate surrounding the Parental Rights law, but it finally gave in to pressures from some of its employees. The company publicly expressed its opposition to the law. What does a producer of children movies and entertainment have to do in debates on LGBTQ+ and gender identity? Yet, the company has the right, like any individual, association, or corporate body, to express an opinion and criticize the government. That it felt obliged to follow a fashionable mob and gave in to corporate politicization says something about the current perils for individual liberty. What if the “canceling” mob were racist, as it has long been in parts of America? Walt Disney also has a constitutional right to suspend political donations to Florida governor Ron DeSantis and other backers of the Parental Rights law, as it did; Republican politicians, who need money, did not like that.
In brief, disagreeing with Walt Disney and the wokes does not at all mean agreeing with DeSantis and the Florida Republican legislators.
Being its own tax district since 1967 is a privilege that Disney lobbied for. Special privileges should not exist, even if it is not clear that this one actually allowed the company to pay less tax. The formula certainly helped it avoid a lot of regulations (on zoning and building, for example) and made it more self-governed in that respect. What is wrong with self-government? Isn’t this is an American ideal–even if it is often interpreted as being “self-governed” by others in a collective polity? Instead of criticizing this privilege, it could be argued that self-government should, to all extent possible, be recognized to everybody (a point also made by David Henderson). And note that Disney paid to purchase the land that became a tax district, and to develop it.
Whatever legal privileges Disney obtained from the state in 1967 and over the years, it is a clear a violation of the rule of law for the government to remove a privilege if the recipient does not renounce its First Amendment rights. The ideal of the rule of law requires that the government only impose abstract and impersonal rules, as opposed to governing by direct commands or bribes to specific individuals or associations of individuals. And it is generally recognized that the rule of law is a necessary institution for a system of individual liberty and free markets. (On this topic, see my review of Friedrich Hayek’s Rules and Order, Econlib, March 7, 2022.)
To add insult to injury, the Act relating to independent special districts signed by governor DeSantis on April 22 states that the abolished districts “may be reestablished on or after June 1, 2023.” In order to allow Disney to beg the state to reestablish its “self-government” in exchange for a promise to behave?
What perhaps is most surprising in the whole affair is the cynical openness with which this step towards tyranny was taken, as if “lawmakers” could make any “law” they wanted. Let us hope that the courts will humble them and remind them that such open discrimination is unconstitutional. According to the Financial Times (“Florida Passes Bill to Strip Disney’s Special Tax Status,” April 22, 2022), DeSantis wrote to donors on Wednesday:
Disney and other woke corporations won’t get away with peddling their unchecked pressure campaigns any longer.
How far have those who call themselves “liberals” as well as those who call themselves “conservatives” have drifted from the classical liberal tradition was also illustrated by the Wall Street Journal editorial quoted above: it totally misses the egregious violation of the rule of law that the vengeful Florida government has committed.
READER COMMENTS
Michael thomas
Apr 24 2022 at 11:00am
A lot of people say that this is “clearly” a violation of the First Amendment. Although I agree with the gist of your comments, otherwise, I wouldn’t be so fast to make that judgment.
This, it seems, is a pretty different question than what we typically see.
The typical case is the government prohibiting a specific group from receiving an otherwise general benefit based on that group’s viewpoint. So Chick-fil-a can’t rent space in an airport otherwise available to any fast food joint because of disapproval over the company’s position on gays.
But this circumstance with Disney is perhaps distinguishable the government is withdrawing a unique benefit provided to a single entity because of that entities’ viewpoint. The “harm” is to put the company on equal footing with other similarly situated companies. Which seems to be a very different sort of harm.
If a state government historically provided camping space on state property to the Boy Scouts, but disapproved of its position on gay troop leaders and said that it would not provide the camping space in the future, would that be a violation of the first amendment?
I think it could be if, for example, the state said that only the Boy Scouts were prohibited from using the campgrounds, but other groups could use it. But if the campgrounds were uniquely provided to the Boy Scouts through a special benefit that only the Boy Scouts received?
I’m just not so sure this one is as clear cut as it superficially seems… It’s actually sort of a tricky question, I think, and one without much precedent…
Pierre Lemieux
Apr 24 2022 at 11:41am
Michael: Thanks for your useful comment. I am sure that, at least in contemporary jurisprudence, the problem is more complicated that my “clearly” suggested. I would argue, though, that my “clearly” is justified in Hayek’s radical legal doctrine. Consider the following example. The (federal) government imposes a tariff on imports of manufactures from China but any importer can ask for an exemption. Company X requests one because it needs a specific bolt (call it B) not otherwise available. This exemption request is accepted (as many others are accepted for slightly different reasons and others rejected). [I understand that many other special tax districts created after 1968 were also abolished.] Later, company X criticizes the government on some other government-preferred policy Q. The government then abolishes all import exemptions for any type of bolts, decreeing that all beneficiaries will have to re-apply. And the president declares about Q, “Company X and other anti-Q corporations won’t get away with peddling their unchecked pressure campaigns any longer.” That would be a novel case, but aren’t the principles clear?
Jim Glass
Apr 26 2022 at 10:14pm
Later, company X criticizes the government on some other government-preferred policy Q… [and gets punished for it.]
Well, it depends on what Q is all about, doesn’t it?
Let’s say that Company X gets very favorable financial terms from its Chinese State-Entity Supplier by agreeing to publicly endorse China’s elimination of freedom in Hong Kong and its reeducation camps for the Uyghurs, encouraging the occupation-by-force of Taiwan, and adopting the Chinese Foreign Ministry position that the “conflict” in Ukraine is the USA’s fault (because of our biological warfare plants there, etc.) This is all contradictory to US government policy, summarized as “Q”.
All the company has done is engage in free speech. So the US gov’t revoking its favored tariff exemption is wrong, a violation of the First Amendment. Is that your argument?
Craig
Apr 24 2022 at 2:30pm
“the government is withdrawing a unique benefit provided to a single entity because of that entities’ viewpoint. The “harm” is to put the company on equal footing with other similarly situated companies. ”
Precisely.
Pierre Lemieux
Apr 24 2022 at 3:20pm
Craig: Not when Disney and other current holders of this privilege want to renew their special status, as the law allows in one year. The one who is deemed enemy of the state will have to give some tacit assurance that it will behave in the future not to lose its privilege again.
Craig
Apr 24 2022 at 8:52pm
This is actually the first that I have read about a future potential renewal if Disney should ‘rehabilitate’ itself.
Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan
Apr 24 2022 at 9:53pm
DeSantis, who has repeatedly acted as if not understanding the difference between resisting an imposition and effecting a counter-imposition, is very likely to be elected President in 2024.
Daniel Kian McKiernan
Apr 28 2022 at 9:51pm
In a private communication, it was suggested that I elaborate.
Under DeSantis, Florida did not merely prevent state agencies from requiring “vaccine passports”, nor prohibit private use of government-sponsored certificates of injection, but prohibitted even private use of strictly private certification. And instead merely of preventing officials to require masking of children, DeSantis has tried to prevent children wearing masks as a matter of personal choice.
Jacob T. Levy
Apr 25 2022 at 11:56am
Nice piece, but conceding far too much merit to the initial bill.
It’s not “fashionable sexual theories” to be able to *acknowledge the existence of gay people.* And note the crucial “or” in this language–
“Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.”
That is, for K-3 there’s no “age-appropriate” category at all; for K-3 “sexual orientation or gender identity” are *categorically* off-limits, no matter how innocuously presented. And of course no one thinks that that means there will be no mention of heterosexual mommies and daddies. So what does it mean?
For K-3, what it means is exactly “don’t say ‘gay.'”
And if you’re a teacher who trying to figure out what those “state standards” for appropriateness are after grade 3, and you’re hearing what the governor and state legislators are saying right out loud, you’re pretty much safer not saying “gay”after that, either.
https://pen.org/these-4-florida-bills-censor-classroom-subjects-and-ideas
Pierre Lemieux
Apr 25 2022 at 8:49pm
Jacob: Thanks for the link. One general comment on the PEN piece : it falls in the same authoritarian trap as what they blame the Florida Republican government for. When the Republicans come to power, they realize that their predecessors have granted too much power to the state and they counter-balance this by increasing state power further, now that nice dictators are finally in power. When the Democrats retake power, they do exactly the same thing. So each group tries in turn to impose its extraordinary values (“extraordinary” compared to the classical liberal tradition of the past two centuries). Thus, Leviathan’s power grows non-stop.
The current fashionable obsessions of the privileged left is about unconventional sex, group identity, and racism. I have nothing against unconventional sex, but the PEN seems to say that woke teachers should be free to initiate 5-to-9-year-olds to their own sexual preferences. They write:
What about a character who favors marriage with objects, like the woman who married the Eiffel Tower? What about a character who, say, only likes sex suspended from a helicopter? As I suggested, it is not the mission of the public school to teach such things to children. As there is somewhere a limit to conversation, there must be a limit as to what public primary schools should teach. By the way, I would also be opposed to public primary schools alerting schoolchildren to the existence of libertarians, even if the latter are more numerous than LGBTQ+s.
I certainly understand (as I mentioned in my post) that one can be concerned with how a law can be interpreted in the future, it does not seem to me tgat the Parental Rights act is very dangerous. The attack against Disney is much more dangerous. Did PEN say anything about that?
Craig
Apr 25 2022 at 9:50pm
“As there is somewhere a limit to conversation, there must be a limit as to what public primary schools should teach.”
How about the 3rs, reading, riting and rithmetic, right? Yes, there must be a limit to any curriculum, the problem of course is one inherent of publicly run schools where the public school system must decide what the curriculum is and the result is the curriculum becomes a political question.
I might add the instant ‘debate’ over this bill really does reflect a necessity for a national divorce, but short of that divorce it might be helpful to recognize that there just aren’t shared values so ultimately one curriculum must prevail over another, right? Or perhaps realize that sex, politics and religion are just three topics I just don’t want to share in public schools with liberals, at all. Let’s just do those topics somewhere else, anywhere else, but in a public school system….
“By the way, I would also be opposed to public primary schools alerting schoolchildren to the existence of libertarians”
Perhaps the Libertarians of America could purchase: “What’s Wrong With Protectionism” by Pierre Lemieux and distribute copies freely to all 10th graders?
“it does not seem to me tgat the Parental Rights act is very dangerous.”
I agree and I might add here that the left’s ‘Don’t Say Gay’ mischaracterization really rubbed many the wrong way.
“The attack against Disney is much more dangerous.”
The retaliatory motive is to be condemned, but the mode of attack actually SHOULD happen. Reading this story would I hesitate at criticizing Democrat politicians in FL? No. Why? Because nobody bestowed special privileges on me. If they had, well, then I would have learned the lesson that as a cronyist, well there’s strings attached — as they say, “Don’t bite the hand that feeds you.”. To a certain extent, and just to clarify, this is NOT to justify the retaliatory motive, I’m glad there is because I want cronyists to think, “Maybe I made a deal with the devil?” and they’ll reconsider rent seeking. Indeed I can say that I feel a certain schadenfreude, why? Well, you live by cronyism, you die by cronyism and if Disney gets hoisted by its own petard, well, equity demands that the benefits derived from cronyism can be disgorged under theories of unjust enrichment.
Did PEN say anything about that?
Pierre Lemieux
Apr 27 2022 at 8:36am
Craig: Scott Summer’s post addresses at the level of principles this idea of “They asked or it.”
Craig
Apr 27 2022 at 9:18am
I think perhaps it might be useful to take a step back and remember that the RCID is government. Disney only controls it because it stunts the development of Bay Lake to ensure that the people who live there are hand selected Disney executives. When Disney did Celebration they quickly detached Celebration from RCID because the people living in Celebration would then exert political control over RCID which is really just a government.
In fact its not even just Disney that is subject to RCID because there are the good neighbor hotels at Lake Buena Vista which are controlled by other hotelier corporations and they have no voting control of RCID because they’re not residents of the district.
The RCID can be revoked for any reason, even a morally wrong reason. Its not actually Disney’s.
johnson85
Apr 26 2022 at 11:06am
Your comment is a good indicator of why the bill was necessary to begin with. It really is completely unnecessary to talk to kindergartners about sexual preference. It’s just not on their radar. People that feel the need to talk with kindergartners about sexual preference (whether hetero, homo, or other) are projecting their sexual obsessions on to children. Even if some teachers that have the impulse to talk about that with children are not groomers or pedophiles, it’s so completely unnecessary that there is no reason to give an opening for the groomers and pedophiles. I have had to do online training to be certified to coach young children in soccer and baseball, and those training sessions all include at least a short section the gist of which is “don’t talk to your players about anything sexual and if they bring it up, reach out to a professional or at least notify league officials”.
Before this controversy came up, I thought that was just legal box checking, as basically nobody but groomers and pedophiles would want to talk about sex with their players, and they would do it regardless of what the training says. But with how many people are upset about the florida bill (way more people than can plausibly be pedophiles, at least I hope), I am starting to wonder if there are just that many people with no clue on appropriate boundaries with children.
zeke5123
Apr 26 2022 at 10:35am
I don’t object too much to your post. I do quibble with one point:
I agree with you that Disney was not engaging in its core business; instead Disney executives used Disney property to either (i) further the executives own goals or (ii) make the executives lives a little easier by getting activists to stop complaining to them.
In either case, the executives used the shareholders property to promote the executives’ goals. This is a principal-agent problem. While I don’t think this should be a legal stricture (as defining what is core business is somewhat difficult), I think from an ethical perspective it is fair to see the company executives did not have a right to use the company to express an opinion largely untethered from the business and that many shareholders would object to.
And this is a difficult principal-agent problem to solve. That doesn’t mean what Florida did was admirable. But condemnation should be equal handed — we can criticize Florida AND Disney executives for poor ethical decisions.
Finally, note my claim is value neutral on whether the executives’ cause was right or wrong — it is simply saying it wasn’t the executives’ ethical right to use other people’s property to make the political statement.
Pierre Lemieux
Apr 26 2022 at 9:56pm
Zeke5123: You write:
I agree except for the “equal” bit. What Disney did was immoral and perhaps a “mortal sin” against the ethics necessary to buttress a system of individual liberty. What the State of Florida did was certainly a direct attack on the legal and constitutional order –on “the constitution of liberty,” to use the title of one of Hayek’s book. Disney was immoral; the State of Florida is tyrannical (as far as I can see).
steve
Apr 26 2022 at 11:59am
The theme here seems to be “I am libertarian and oppose government oppression of speech, unless it is speech with which I disagree.” As a private entity Disney had the right to speak and even say disagreeable things. If they say bad things then they should be punished in the market. People stop buying their stuff. (Though I guess I should note that when this happens it is now called cancel culture. For some reason private actors dont have the right to engage in free speech or actions in response to speech they dont like, but that is another topic I guess.) What is not allowed is for government to punish a private entity for their speech, clearly the case with Disney. Even if Disney were the only corporation with this special privilege, which I believe is not the case, they should not be deprived of it as a governmental response to speech.
Steve
David Seltzer
Apr 26 2022 at 4:53pm
“Many strands of government intervention converged towards the worrying outcome.” Equally worrisome is that large numbers of people from several political spectra support imposing speech restrictions. Buchanan, de Jasay and Hayek warned; administrations and regimes appealing to that client base will culminate in gross tyranny. In Hong Kong, dare to criticize Xi, one will be be summarily punished. Putin critic Navalny has been poisoned and jailed.
Jim Glass
Apr 27 2022 at 10:23pm
Equally worrisome is that large numbers of people from several political spectra support imposing speech restrictions. Buchanan, de Jasay and Hayek warned…
Well, yes, but it’s hardly like they were the first people ever to think of this. (Not all credit goes to libertarians.)
The First Amendment was enacted in 1789.
David Seltzer
Apr 28 2022 at 1:03pm
Jim, I see your point but as the threat still exists, it seems it was necessary for Buchanan et al to sound the warning some 200 years later. The fact that we are discussing it now means we should be vigilant. Whether libertarian or not, the founders understood profoundly the perils of restricting freedom of speech.
Kevin
Apr 26 2022 at 5:33pm
This doesn’t directly address the issue at hand, but is it even Constitutional for Florida to enact the “Don’t Say Gay” bill? After all, public employees have First Amendment protection for matters of public concern while in the workplace, do they not?
zeke5123
Apr 26 2022 at 9:44pm
No — not acting in their capacity as an employee. For example, if you hire a science teacher to teach science, you can restrict their ability to discuss economic matters even if said economic matters are of public import.
They cannot prohibit public employees, however, from speaking on topics while not in their capacity of employment.
The misnamed “don’t say gay” bill fits more in the first instance.
Kevin
Apr 26 2022 at 10:30pm
That’s a good point. The protection does not extend to speech carried out during job duties, but suppose a child approaches a teacher during passing time, or before or after school, or at lunch, etc…is there any gray area?
Craig
Apr 26 2022 at 10:52pm
Is Santa Claus real?
That’s something you have to discuss with your parents.
Kevin
Apr 26 2022 at 11:26pm
Makes sense.
Jim Glass
Apr 27 2022 at 10:13pm
OK, much hoopla and emotional/political nonsense is being spread across the media about this Disney thing.
Correcting that, here is a Florida lawyer who specializes in representing special districts — including Disney Celebration Village — explaining the legal reality.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylVbq4gp260
Note in particular that (1) there is no chance that Florida taxpayers will become liable for the Reedy Creek bonds (they are secured entirely by property within the district) and (2) there is no First Amendment issue here whatsoever.
Understanding it good … (before arguing, even better!)
Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan
Apr 30 2022 at 2:11am
An explanation as to how the state of Florida might get court approval for what it has done doesn’t address the point of the entry.
Whether or not the state should have granted Disney the powers that it did, and by what devices those power were granted, Disney has now been punished for taking a position on a cluster of issues.
For the state to respect or to abridge rights or to extend or to withdraw privileges based on the positions that one takes is for the state to attempt to control expression.
Jim Glass
Apr 30 2022 at 10:45pm
Well, let’s try to be accurate. To begin with, “the state” has not punished anyone for “thinking” anything. Disney, due to its own internal politics, chose to act overtly to influence a hotly contested local political dispute involving school children — unhappily for it, taking the least popular side. Inept corporate governance in action.
Look at the facts for perspective … Years ago, Disney used its unmatched regional corporate power to influence the state government into giving it a HUGE competitive advantage over its competitors such as Universal, Sea World, Busch Gardens, etc. In addition to obtaining unique tax-free bond financing, and freedom from regulation (it can build it’s own nuclear power plant if it wants) Disney also sticks a big hit on taxpayers as it pays nothing towards the infrastructure (roads etc.) that its customers use to visit it, etc. Its competitors pay plenty.
(Libertarians endorse such use of government power to gain such unfair advantages over competitors and offload business expenses on taxpayers? Geeze!)
Now the state legislature has voted 63-38 in the House and 23-16 in the Senate to remove that advantage and make Disney subject to the same rules as everyone else.
“Tyranny”?? Me thinks that’s defining ‘tyranny’ downward a good long way.
That is a very naïve reading of the situation. The legislators from Universal, Sea World, Busch Gardens, the taxpayer’s union, et al, have been seeking to revoke Disney’s special privileges for years — but been blocked by Disney’s unique political power in the state, as everyone in Florida politics knows.
Now, however, Disney has compromised its political power via a big political blunder. As a result, the legislators from Universal et al have finally been able to get the equal playing field they want for reasons of business and equity. Not to censor anyone’s thoughts! DeSantis can politically posture and strut any way he wants. He’s not them. They are representing their interests, not his.
That is, via democratic electoral politics an over-reaching big special interest has lost its power to rig “the state” to unduly favor it over its competitors and taxpayers. I’d have thought libertarians would cheer!
But no? Instead they rush to make defenses for Disney that it doesn’t even make for itself. Go figure.
Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan
May 1 2022 at 9:35pm
Writing at length, you’ve completely avoided addressing my points.
And it is somewhat disingenuous to say that the state is not punishing people for how they think. Setting aside states that simply act at random, states punish people based upon evidence, not based upon a direct apprehension of an underlying reality.
I don’t know to what extent the state of Florida is punishing Disney because it takes their expressions as evidence of having thoughts unacceptable to the tribe in political control, but at the least it is punishing Disney to prevent those expressions from leading others to think such thoughts or from reinforcing others in such thinking. If expression were epiphenomenal, no one could care about it.
steve
May 1 2022 at 12:13pm
You can argue about whether or not Disney should have been given its privileges but there is no doubt that they were removed explicitly as a result of Disney’s speech. That is clearly a violation of the 1st Amendment. The lawyer cited above is slightly, only a tiny bit, entertaining in trying to explain this away. I guess it is a lawyer’s job to try to defend illegal actions but this was a fail.
Steve
Craig
May 1 2022 at 1:27pm
“You can argue about whether or not Disney should have been given its privileges ”
But Disney isn’t really the recipient of the privileges. RCID is actually controlled by landowners, specifically 5 landowners who own some land in RCID, technically the only land not owned by Disney, who vote for the people who run the RCID. The fact is is that Disney controls who the residents of Bay Lake are and they are hand picked and they pay a monthly rent of $75 per month for some kind of mobile home and they don’t control the Board or have a vote, even though theoretically they should.
When Disney did Celebration, people moved in and Disney realized that if Celebration were left in the RCID, they would LOSE control. So they detached it. {In a sense one could argue that the RCID ‘punished’ the anticipated future not-quite-as-pro Disney voters of Celebration}
Compare with the special districts for the Villages where my dad has now retired to up in Sumter County, its no longer controlled by their ‘Disney’
Initially the special districts are controlled by the landowners but the legislature recognized that at some time prescribed by statute (I think its 6 or 7 years), control should begin a process of transition to the residents.
So we can see that Disney exerts de facto control over the district thru hand picked ‘Disney’ employee but still not-Disney landowner strawmen (who own undeveloped lots no less and don’t even live there) and stunts the residential development of the district to retain this control.
So, yes, the I Amendment theory is pretty straightforward and ultimately there’s a possibility that line of reasoning could prevail, but the wrinkle here is that the retaliation is with respect to something that isn’t, in actuality, Disney’s.
Comments are closed.