Free Speech

[NotThePrez]

I know. Daily Mail.

If it helps (and I wasn't sure if I should've posted it here, in the America thread, or in the Homosexuality thread),...

Florida Lawmaker Threatens a 'Living Hell' for Disney as Feud Intensifies

Anthony Sabatini, a member of the Florida House of Representatives, says lawmakers may strip away favors that have benefited Disney for nearly six decades.

www.newsweek.com

That's Representative Anthony Sabatini threatening to repeal some of the government perks that Disney has enjoyed for the past 60+ years due to the companies opposition to the Don't Say Gay Law, with the express intention of making life "a living hell" for the media and Theme Park giant, the one who plays likely the biggest role in the tourism dollars our state receives.

I'd be lying if I said part of me didn't want to watch the Florida government fight one of the biggest contributors to our states economy over the expression of their 1st Amendment Rights, fail, and watch Disney decrease, or even eliminate their contributions to the state as a result. This seems like an extremely large match of "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes."

 

[McLaren]

I read something the other day lambasting this b/c due to the fact Disney operates its own district, governed by people who are senior members of Disney themselves, that plays a vital role in how anyone else plans to "control" them. Furthermore, as you mentioned Prez, it's a potential "Gun Meet Foot" scenario to mess with an entity that contributes (according to a 2019 study) $75.2 billion/year in economic impact for central Florida.

 

[Danoff]

The leftist Disney thing is pretty weird. My kids parade just about everything disney in front of me, and I don't see the woke.

Let's take a look at one recent Disney hit - Encanto (mild spoilers below).

In the movie Encanto, there is a strong authoritarian family figure (Abuela), who is centrally planning everyone's lives for the good of the family. Each of her kids and grandkids have various talents, some of which she recognizes and some of which she does not. Those talents that she recognizes get put to the use of the family according to the extent possible. Basically, from each according to their ability. This twists ability into a yoke of slavery, and the obligation takes its tole on each person. Similarly, talents which are unrecognized are also a source of strife, as family members are prevented from achieving if the central planner fails to recognize their potential. Sound familiar? From each according to their ability, for the good of the many.

Ultimately the whole thing unravels for much the same reason that it does in a communistic society - because the whole point of all of it is for the people, the very people that are being made miserable and essentially enslaved by the system.

You would think that conservatives would LOVE this anti-leftist anti-communist message in a kids movie. It's almost as though when the skin color is a few shades too dark it's automatically woke.

Now don't get me wrong here, I don't think that the writers are Encanto were trying to make a political statement. They were really just exploring family dynamics, especially as it pertains to immigrant or displaced families that, still reeling from the grief of displacement, are trying their best to make a more stable home for the future. But if you want to see a political message, it looks anti-leftist to me.

 

[Joey D]

Now don't get me wrong here, I don't think that the writers are Encanto were trying to make a political statement.

You'd be surprised. The worst hot take I've seen is that Bruno (yes, yes I know we don't talk about him) is Trump and that communism (the family) is trying to lock him away for showing what the future will look like under socialism. Once the family decides to embrace Bruno (as in embrace Trump) things will magically get better. Your guess is as good as mine with how that all fits together.

I'm seen Encanto at least 40 times, know every song, and can repeat every line. At no point have I looked at it and said "you know what? This is woke".

The only new Disney movie I really have questions about is that red panda one, while I don't think it's woke by any means, it does seem to exist so Disney can make money in China. I'm not even sure who it's aimed at because teenagers probably aren't all that excited to see the latest Disney movie.

 

[Danoff]

You'd be surprised. The worst hot take I've seen is that Bruno (yes, yes I know we don't talk about him) is Trump and that communism (the family) is trying to lock him away for showing what the future will look like under socialism. Once the family decides to embrace Bruno (as in embrace Trump) things will magically get better. Your guess is as good as mine with how that all fits together.

That's bizarre.

I'm seen Encanto at least 40 times, know every song, and can repeat every line. At no point have I looked at it and said "you know what? This is woke".

The only new Disney movie I really have questions about is that red panda one, while I don't think it's woke by any means, it does seem to exist so Disney can make money in China. I'm not even sure who it's aimed at because teenagers probably aren't all that excited to see the latest Disney movie.

Red Panda Turning Red is one I have yet to see, but my kids and my wife have seen it and she tells me that it's about helping girls understand menstruation. I think it may be intentionally aimed a little younger than the actual event - but then you do wonder whether they'll retain that understanding when they actually go through it. I guess if they know the movie by heart, they might.

 

[FerrariF1GT]

The only new Disney movie I really have questions about is that red panda one, while I don't think it's woke by any means, it does seem to exist so Disney can make money in China. I'm not even sure who it's aimed at because teenagers probably aren't all that excited to see the latest Disney movie.

That would be Turning Red, and the CliffsNotes version of the story is basically about an Asian (I forget which country)-Canadian (so no 'Murica pat-on-the-backing) girl going through puberty and she, of course, becomes a panda whenever she as mood swings and she learns to control it. Like all Disney/Pixar films, it's for a family audience, and I would presume they wanted the movie to be inclusive as possible and respectful of the cultures represented. That premise alone would probably draw the ire of conservatives as being woke, because woke means whatever they feel like it means these days.

 

[DK]

I'm not holding my breath waiting for any conservatives to start advocating for the free speech rights of Amazon workers.

 

[Imari]

I'm not holding my breath waiting for any conservatives to start advocating for the free speech rights of Amazon workers.

Wow, Amazon is about to find out how far euphemisms and slang can go.

 

[TexRex]

Edit: Wow, just got a crash course on how quickly false information can spread on Twitter. Jesus, these people's posts need to get taken down before they can spread. I'm not entirely sure I believe in freedom of speech on the internet.

So I already responded to part of what I've quoted above. I responded to the last bit with a Family Guy gif depicting Brian swatting Peter on the nose with a rolled-up newspaper as if to discourage behavior deemed bad. I offered the give largely in jest, though I disagree with the sentiment espoused.

The government isn't fit to be an arbiter of the truth. No government is.

What you have in free countries is a government that likely has its interests and preferred narratives, but these narratives aren't orthodoxy and private actors aren't penalized for espousing narratives that run counter to those which the government prefers.

Russia is not a free country.



I'm also compelled to point out that in the remarks I've quoted above, two disparate ideas are presented as being related--intentional or otherwise--when the two ideas are not related, at least not as presented. It appears to be a suggestion that Twitter not taking down posts is due to free speech, when the reality is that it may or may not be.

Twitter taking down posts is itself free speech. Twitter not taking down posts may be free speech if a decision has been made not to, but it could also very easily be a result of a particular post being one of some 6,000 published every second and thus having simply been missed.

Twitter is a service offered by private actors entirely at their discretion. Those private actors not allowing others to utilize the service offered is not a violation of anyone's rights.

 

[Keef]

I agree with you wholeheartedly but I'm still of the opinion that this truth kinda sucks fairly often. There are plenty of people who abuse their own right for blatantly negative and bad-faith reasons and never face consequences despite evidence that they have influenced negative actions with their negative words. I suppose I'll just have to live with being annoyed by these people because they apparently do have the freedom to be assholes and cause problems.

 

[Danoff]

I agree with you wholeheartedly but I'm still of the opinion that this truth kinda sucks fairly often. There are plenty of people who abuse their own right for blatantly negative and bad-faith reasons and never face consequences despite evidence that they have influenced negative actions with their negative words. I suppose I'll just have to live with being annoyed by these people because they apparently do have the freedom to be assholes and cause problems.

Our social development around this particular issue is slower than I'd like, and perhaps is slower than it needs to be. I do think we can get there, but the world is moving a little fast for a big portion of the population.

 

[TexRex]

I'm old enough to remember the galaxy brain theme park carve-out in Florida's facially unconstitutional social media free speech law (which is to say the law that violates the free speech rights of social network providers, rather than the law claimed by its proponents to protect the free speech rights of social media users) that has since been neutered by federal court due to its unconstitutionality.

There are plenty of people who abuse their own right for blatantly negative and bad-faith reasons and never face consequences despite evidence that they have influenced negative actions with their negative words.

A couple things.

First, rights can't be abused. Nor are they hidden behind. Nor can they go stale because they're not utilized. You have rights or you don't. Governments observe and respect rights or they don't.

Second, "influenced negative actions with their negative words" is a bit nebulous. It sounds like you're alluding to something akin to incitement. Incitement is a tricky thing because people tend to have agency over their actions. Also, if someone can be said to have been driven to do harm, it can be difficult to pin down precisely what drove them. These difficulties are observed in current constitutional jurisprudence in the implementation of the three-point Brandenburg Test for incitement (Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)). For an alleged act of incitement to be deemed unprotected against state action, it must satisfy each of the three points enumerated in Brandenburg: expectation, intent, and imminence. The expectation that the average individual may do harm upon supposed incitement, the intent of the individual alleged to have incited harmful act(s), and the harmful act is perpetrated imminently. Even if the first two can reasonably be said to have been met, the nature of social media (also broadcast and print medias) is such that the imminence requirement is unlikely to be met.

Is the Brandenburg Test perfect? It's not my place to say. But I also can't come up with a better set of standards that prevent harm (by imposing just penalties) while respecting the right of free expression.

Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)

In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the Court ruled that speech advocating illegal conduct is protected by the First Amendment unless it is likely to incite “imminent lawless action.”

www.mtsu.edu

I'm compelled to add that I consider Clarence Brandenburg to have been absolute ****ing garbage, but I also recognize that even vile individuals have rights and that they should be equal beneficiaries of protections.

 

[Tornado]

MSN

Took him long enough to trot out that dogwhistle considering it was so obvious that even DeSantis started threatening Twitter over not graciously selling themselves to Musk because of it.

 

[McLaren]

Leading conservatives, who for years have accused Twitter and other social media platforms like Facebook and YouTube of censoring right-leaning views, have applauded Musk’s bid. “Let’s hope this goes through and we have free speech on Twitter again,” Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) said in a Fox Business interview that he posted on Twitter.

"Twitter is censoring me!" - shared on Twitter from iPhone.

What happened to running to Parler, Gab, Truth Social, etc? Oh right, no one goes on those social media land fills, not even Trump.

 

[TexRex]

MSN

Try convincing him or them.

"Twitter is censoring me!" - shared on Twitter from iPhone.

What happened to running to Parler, Gab, Truth Social, etc? Oh right, no one goes on those social media land fills, not even Trump.

I love the Gym Jim Jordan remarks included. Gym Jim is such a free speech champion that he'd have government weigh the speech of some favorably against the speech of others.

That which rat ****ing Republicans decry as "wokeness" and "cancel culture" as part of their indulgent bitchfits is necessarily speech.

I know I've said it before, but "censorship" here is itself speech. Censorship is only censorship when governments engage in it, particularly when leveraging penalties against protected expression.

I know Parler engages in "censorship," and they get to.

https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/29/as-predicted-parler-is-banning-users-it-doesnt-like/

The reason people don't flock to aternative platforms specifically like Parler, Gab, Truth Social, Frank (and so on, ad nauseum) is they're ideological cesspits. Some people want that, but the overwhelming majority obviously don't.

The reason conservatives aren't content to stick to these platforms and actively want government regulation (a classic conservative interest) of platforms like Twitter is because of reach. Conservatives are looking for social media "welfare."

...

 

[TexRex]

Aaaaanyway...the right is now seeking to weaponize the courts against speech they don't like using tactics employed by Texas to deny women bodily autonomy.

Of course the rat ****ers are going after private businesses. Nobody is safe from their culture war posturing.

Nobody who has been paying attention should be surprised by this development.

Minutes after bill is signed, lawsuit filed against DeSantis for 'Stop WOKE Act'

They alleged House Bill 7, which DeSantis signed into law on Friday, violated their First and Fourth Amendment rights.

www.tallahassee.com

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Try convincing him or them.

I love the Gym Jim Jordan remarks included. Gym Jim is such a free speech champion that he'd have government weigh the speech of some favorably against the speech of others.

That which rat ****ing Republicans decry as "wokeness" and "cancel culture" as part of their indulgent bitchfits is necessarily speech.

I know I've said it before, but "censorship" here is itself speech. Censorship is only censorship when governments engage in it, particularly when leveraging penalties against protected expression.

I know Parler engages in "censorship," and they get to.

https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/29/as-predicted-parler-is-banning-users-it-doesnt-like/

The reason people don't flock to aternative platforms specifically like Parler, Gab, Truth Social, Frank (and so on, ad nauseum) is they're ideological cesspits. Some people want that, but the overwhelming majority obviously don't.

The reason conservatives aren't content to stick to these platforms and actively want government regulation (a classic conservative interest) of platforms like Twitter is because of reach. Conservatives are looking for social media "welfare."

...

The admission that Disney could get it's special status back if it retracted its speech seems to me to acknowledge that this was retaliation for the original disfavored speech. I'm pretty sure that this runs afoul the first amendment. All they had to do was maintain that this was unrelated to Disney's political position and they could at least plausibly deny that this is retaliation. I'm curious to see where this goes. Again, it's pretty stunning that the Governor of Florida would stoop this low, but he really is the performative asshat to top all asshats.

 

[TexRex]

The admission that Disney could get it's special status back if it retracted its speech seems to me to acknowledge that this was retaliation for the original disfavored speech. I'm pretty sure that this runs afoul the first amendment. All they had to do was maintain that this was unrelated to Disney's political position and they could at least plausibly deny that this is retaliation. I'm curious to see where this goes. Again, it's pretty stunning that the Governor of Florida would stoop this low, but he really is the performative asshat to top all asshats.

Yeah, I wonder if Disney bothers to fight it. I think they probably have a pretty strong First Amendment claim, but I think they're harmed most by being mired in red tape should it wish to physically expand. This seems to hurt the Florida counties in which Disney resides far more than it does Disney itself.

I saw an interesting take on the whole debacle. Because this reactionary measure came out of Disney announcing it would no longer contribute financially to political actors behind HB 1557, and it's apparent that the measure may be reversed should Disney change course, could the retaliation be seen as extortion?

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

The extortion angle is an interesting one and seemingly not without merit. Disney isn't lacking for a war-chest to fight this, but at some point the hostility of the environment might not be worth it. Puerto Rico sure could do with an economic boost...most people would be flying to Florida anyways, and PR is not much further of a flight. Weather is practically the same and PR blows Florida away in terms of landscape. If I was Disney, I would be taking a really hard look at whether staying in a place so overtly hostile (you could well argue that taxes, fees, and other burdensome regulation in California or NY are abstractly hostile, but this is a whole different ballgame) is worth it or not. I'm sure DeSantis is counting on Disney towing the line (he can't possibly want one of the largest economic & cultural contributors to the state to leave, right?) but the immediacy of the hostility is quite alarming. What else could they do to Disney?

 

[NotThePrez]

I'm sure DeSantis is counting on Disney towing the line (he can't possibly want one of the largest economic & cultural contributors to the state to leave, right?) but the immediacy of the hostility is quite alarming.

Honestly, at this point I kinda hope that Disney does decide to leave Florida, for no other reason than a big middle finger to DeSantis' malarkey. With how big the House of Mouse is in terms of money and influence, I have a feeling that Florida needs Disney much more than Disney needs Florida. Yes, it would be a massive blow to the state, but perhaps it would be the blow that gets people to realize how much of an unhinged idiot DeSantis is, and realize that screwing with people's livelihoods and means of escape for the sake of political games is rather scummy. Probably being a bit too optimistic, though.

It's worth as well that the "Stop WOKE Act" (God I hate that word so much now) does have a provision to allow for re-negotiations down the line, likely if Disney decides to tow the line. I feel like that there's enough going on for Disney to bring a somewhat solid extortion case against DeSantis.

 

[Tornado]

Man, you would have thought great businessman Trump would have figured out that all he had to do to keep people from getting deplatformed for deliberately spreading dangerous misinformation about a pandemic and supporting the overthrow of the US government was to perform a hostile takeover of a social media company.




I guess that's the one difference between the two.

 

[Blitz24]

Man, you would have thought great businessman Trump would have figured out that all he had to do to keep people from getting deplatformed for deliberately spreading dangerous misinformation about a pandemic and supporting the overthrow of the US government was to perform a hostile takeover of a social media company.




I guess that's the one difference between the two.

That would have required him to have billions of dollars.... which I'm pretty sure doesn't even exist on paper.

 

[Danoff]

Man, you would have thought great businessman Trump would have figured out that all he had to do to keep people from getting deplatformed for deliberately spreading dangerous misinformation about a pandemic and supporting the overthrow of the US government was to perform a hostile takeover of a social media company.




I guess that's the one difference between the two.

Perhaps if he actually had the money.

To be honest, this is pretty horrifying. Imagine for a moment that in response to twitter flagging his posts leading up to the election, then president Trump attempted a hostile takeover of twitter while in office. Granted, this would have been against lots of rules, but he's president and apparently gets to break lots of rules. The president of the country purchasing a private company so that he can use them to continue to spread misinformation to win an election. It boggles the mind, and we perhaps flirted closer to that reality than we all might have assumed.

It's amazing whole fragile the whole thing is really.

 

[Dotini]

The RNC is circulating a list of 16 names in an exploratory poll for the next Republican presidential candidate. Donald Trump is one, but oddsmakers put him at least even odds versus the field. Failing convictions for tax fraud and sundry other crimes and offenses, and assuming he gets his Twitter account back, and taking into consideration that the Republicans seem likely take both houses of Congress in the mid-terms, Trump seems likely to be returned to office. Possibly a pyrrhic victory for free speech, but likely a disaster for national unity.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Perhaps if he actually had the money.

To be honest, this is pretty horrifying. Imagine for a moment that in response to twitter flagging his posts leading up to the election, then president Trump attempted a hostile takeover of twitter while in office. Granted, this would have been against lots of rules, but he's president and apparently gets to break lots of rules. The president of the country purchasing a private company so that he can use them to continue to spread misinformation to win an election. It boggles the mind, and we perhaps flirted closer to that reality than we all might have assumed.

It's amazing whole fragile the whole thing is really.

Probably would have been easier to just nationalize the company outright and bring it under the control of the executive branch through some made-up agency.

 

[Dotini]

Probably would have been easier to just nationalize the company outright and bring it under the control of the executive branch through some made-up agency.

Nationalizing the TV and newspapers under executive control is equally plausible.

 

[Imari]

The RNC is circulating a list of 16 names in an exploratory poll for the next Republican presidential candidate. Donald Trump is one, but oddsmakers put him at least even odds versus the field. Failing convictions for tax fraud and sundry other crimes and offenses, and assuming he gets his Twitter account back, and taking into consideration that the Republicans seem likely take both houses of Congress in the mid-terms, Trump seems likely to be returned to office. Possibly a pyrrhic victory for free speech, but likely a disaster for national unity.

Assuming he doesn't randomly die between now and then. Dude is pretty old and isn't exactly in what you'd call great shape.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Assuming he doesn't randomly die between now and then. Dude is pretty old and isn't exactly in what you'd call great shape.

I personally think he will use "health" as a vague pretext to not run again - more than losing the general election, I think Trump fears losing the primary to DeSantis, which would be a far bigger humiliation. I also think his personal brand of narcissisms is, and always has been, better served by grieving from the sidelines. But the man is not so easy to predict.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

I personally think he will use "health" as a vague pretext to not run again - more than losing the general election, I think Trump fears losing the primary to DeSantis, which would be a far bigger humiliation. I also think his personal brand of narcissisms is, and always has been, better served by grieving from the sidelines. But the man is not so easy to predict.

That seems off character. I would expect blame on cancel culture, witch hunts, and whatever else there is while claiming to be in the best health of his lifetime.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

That seems off character. I would expect blame on cancel culture, witch hunts, and whatever else there is while claiming to be in the best health of his lifetime.

I would have agreed with you, but the man himself has broached the subject. He's never even suggested that his health is anything other than perfect, so to even question it makes me think he is preparing it as a possible way out.

“You always have to talk about health. You look like you’re in good health, but tomorrow, you get a letter from a doctor saying come see me again. That’s not good when they use the word again.”

If he does use health as the reason to not run again, he could "retire" without losing another battle to the opponents you listed. "I could have beat them if it weren't for this lumbago!"