Keep in mind that this is use of government force against a private entity for exercising its expressive right to criticize use of government force against private individuals for exercising their expressive rights.
This all began with Florida Republicans' deceptively titled Parental Rights in Education Act (referred to colloquially as "Don't Say Gay") which, among other things, created a private cause of action (basically a civil claim that is actionable when it meets requirements laid out in statute or defined by judicial precedent--think defamation) against a public school or district that employs an individual who engaged in disfavored expression on the ill-defined subject of sexuality and gender, initially to those "through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards," now expanded through grade 12.
What Florida has done with "Don't Say Gay" (a moniker that is apt if solely for the fact that one may indeed be penalized merely for saying "gay") is codify the heckler's veto, a means for a single offended private party to carry out government suppression of speech of another private party by way of adjudication in a court of law. Worse than that, as I have pointed out in the past, is that the law is [likely deliberately] vague enough that public school administrators may preemptively excuse an educator or other employee on the basis that one may express themself in a manner that may incur a lawsuit under the statute, and obviously that's just dandy as far as connie rats DeSantis, Florida legislators, and their respective voter bases are concerned.
I stated at the top that the law is deceptively named because it weighs the interests of individual offended parties ("interests" because there is no legitimate right to not be offended), who may be parents, against the interests of other parents and the legitimate rights of speakers.
This is all obviously contemptible overreach by government and private individuals who represent the Disney corporation to some degree were understandably critical of this state action, as is their legal and natural right to be. Because of this criticism, the Florida executive decided to rescind a legal right of limited self-governance afforded to Disney decades earlier, governance that benefitted not only Disney but also many Florida taxpayers. This sort of self-governance isn't entirely unique in the state of Florida, but it is indeed special treatment compared to that which the typical Florida taxpayer receives.
On the basis of disfavored viewpoint, the Florida executive dissolved Disney's Reedy Creek governance board and replaced it with a governance board aligned with the Florida executive--also special treatment compared to that which the typical Florida taxpayer receives, as well as unique compared to the limited self-governance other private entities in Florida enjoy.
apnews.com
apnews.com
abcnews.go.com
