[stuxnet]

Some call it retribution, others call it reversing a privilege that should not have existed in the first place.

I find it most humorous that the ones calling it retribution would generally support this measure if it had been forced on, say, Koch Industries in a red district of a purple state.

[WarOnPrivacy]

> Some call it retribution, others call it reversing a privilege that should not have existed in the first place.

Sure. But rolling back those privileges within an act of overt political revenge - that insures it becomes yet another expensive, taxpayer funded bench-slap.

Two of FL's legal money-drains - see FL mention: https://www.project-disco.org/competition/033122-despite-war...

and there's this: https://www.orlandosentinel.com/opinion/scott-maxwell-commen...

[stuxnet]

Thanks for the links! I agree with you that it's almost certainly related to recent events and probably not the best course of action to save taxpayer money in the short term.

To restate my position - I don't believe that Disney (or any other corporation) should ever have the ability to levy taxes in their own special district as that is explicitly a function of government.

Instances of political revenge, especially in this day and age, are not rare or limited to one side of the political spectrum. I oppose any attempts to target groups of non-affiliated people (by race, sexual orientation, etc), but can't be too upset when the casualty is a mega corp like Disney.

[colburnmh]

So, your position is that it's OK if it's political revenge against Disney, because they make lots of money?

You realize that is a very slippery slope, right? The first amendment confers free speech as a right regardless of your financial status. If you start to erode that right, and say "if you are 'rich' it's OK if your rights are trampled," then the subjective definition of "rich" will just be adjusted to match the person currently in the crosshairs, until one day, the person in the crosshairs is you.

[pstuart]

So what was the motivation for this then?

Some of us are ok with pointing out issues regardless of "whose side" is involved. It would be nice if there were more of us like that.

edit: @stuxnet I can't reply to your reply so I'll amend here:

I'm not a Disney fan either but that's not the concern being addressed -- it's the "reasoning" behind it and the fact that it fits into a pattern of harassments and intimidation of all who do not support them.

Punishing others as political theater is dangerous territory and it only seems to be accelerating. Public officials/applicants are advocating for death to all who oppose them. If that doesn't bother you because you're on the right team then I encourage you to revisit that and examine how that might not be good for society.

[stuxnet]

I'm not particularly a fan of Disney or the Florida legislature so I totally agree with your second point.

The point I was trying to make is that regardless of the recent motivations, the end result is that a mega corporation is stripped of privileges that they shouldn't have had in the first place. I would support that in this case and also the other fictional case I presented with Koch Industries.

So I guess the point of contention is in the motivation, but that doesn't matter to me as long as the end result is the same.

[colburnmh]

It's your interpretation that Disney should never have had those rights. The state of Florida clearly strongly disagrees with you, given that they have granted the same/similar rights to thousands of entities over more than 200 years (yes, before Florida was even a state). 1800 different active entities currently have special district rights in Florida.

I think debating whether special districts should be allowed at all would be a good discussion to have, but it is completely separate from whether what the government did in passing SB-4C is a violation of Disney's (and possibly the Orange and Osceola county taxpayers') first amendment rights.