Disney vs. DeSantis Dismissed
Walt Disney World’s federal lawsuit against Governor Ron DeSantis, Secretary of Florida’s Department of Commerce, and all members of the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District (CFTOD) has been dismissed. This post covers the order granting the motion to dismiss, plus a brief bit of commentary.
For starters, it’s been a relatively quiet 6 months in the battle of Disney vs. DeSantis. Hopefully you’ve enjoyed it as much as I have. Aside from passing references to this litigation in What Bob Iger Needs to Fix at Walt Disney World & Beyond in 2024 (under “Quiet Controversy”), we haven’t discussed the standoff with the state much since last June. In part, that’s because the cases (plural, this is one of two) have offered only procedural updates for the most part. Not exactly exciting or sexy stuff that normal person planning a Disney trip wants to read about.
It’s also because (thankfully) Governor DeSantis and Bob Iger have mostly shut up about it. Now the latter can direct his efforts on fighting Elon Musk and Bob Chapek. Or maybe Iger will pick a new fight with, I dunno, Jared Leto. He’s got another couple years as CEO and, if you ask me, Leto totally deserves it. (Why does he keep showing up in movies I’d otherwise want to see?!)
If you’re simply looking for the short and sweet conclusion, it’s on page 3 of the Order: “Disney lacks standing to sue the Governor or the Secretary, and its claims against the CFTOD Defendants fail on the merits because ‘when a statute is facially constitutional, a plaintiff cannot bring a free-speech challenge by claiming that the lawmakers who passed it acted with a constitutionally impermissible purpose.'”
In plain English, the key part of this–the statue being facially constitutional–means that the free-speech argument fails because the law replacing RCID with CFTOD itself is valid. That means that even though DeSantis and co. were quite clear in their motivations for passing the law revoking Disney’s self-governing district–to retaliate against Disney for speaking out against pending legislation–it did not matter because the law itself was constitutional. Disney had no right to its own special district of indefinite duration, and Florida had the authority to revoke and replace it for no reason or any reason (even a bad one!).
At least according to the reasoning of this order, the motivations of elected leaders in promoting or passing said law were irrelevant. Judge Winsor found that only the end result is what mattered, and that was legally permissible. If you didn’t listen to the press conferences and the interviews and so forth–and just looked at the language of the law itself on its face–it would survive legal scrutiny. (And to be sure, one could envision politicians on the other side of the aisle passing a very similar law–they had questioned Disney’s control of the district for years, albeit never all that seriously.)
It would be like if I were governor and held a bunch of press conferences talking about how much I hate rodents. Then one day, a mouse criticized some laws I signed. So in response, I said all mice suck and I was going to punish them because how dare they speak out against me. I then made a law effectively restricting rodent access to trash cans and they sued, arguing that I retaliated as a direct result of them engaging in protected speech.
They’re right; I did. That may not be cool of me, but that’s more a distraction as a matter of law. The operative legal question is whether the law itself, in isolation, is fine. Am I able to restrict the rights of rats to trash? If so, the case is dismissed. And even if not, do rodents really have standing to sue me in the first place? After all, they’re rats.
Honestly, this hypothetical example is slightly more cumbersome than the actual facts of this case, which are practically written-up as if they’re a bar exam hypothetical–the kind you’d seldom encounter in the real world. Given that, I’ll pull some excerpts from the Order (you can read the full 17-page court document here) that hopefully provide a bit more clarity about this decision.
The court ruled that Disney has not shown standing to sue the Governor or the Secretary. To the extent that Governor contributed to Disney’s injury by appointing CFTOD board members, that action is in the past–there is no future injury from which injunctive relief can provide a remedy. Think of this as the Doctrine of What’s Done is Done.
From the Order: “The analysis could be different if the Governor had not yet made any appointments. But as things stand, if this court enjoined future appointments, Disney would face the same situation it faces now: it would be operating under the CFTOD board, over which it has no control. Stopping hypothetical future appointments would not redress any alleged imminent harm.”
Disney also contended it had standing because the Governor was exercising (ongoing) actual control over the CFTOD board. To that, the court said this: “Disney has not alleged any specific actions the new board took (or will take) because of the Governor’s alleged control. In fact, Disney has not alleged any specific injury from any board action. Its alleged injury, as discussed above, is its operating under a board it cannot control. That injury would exist whether or not the Governor controlled the board.”
More interesting, I think, is the free-speech challenge dismissal: “it is settled law that ‘when a statute is facially constitutional, a plaintiff cannot bring a free-speech challenge by claiming that the lawmakers who passed it acted with a constitutionally impermissible purpose.’ And this settled law forecloses Disney’s claim.”
“The Legislature can determine the structure of Florida’s special improvement districts. Disney does not argue that the First Amendment (or anything else) would preclude the Legislature from enacting the challenged laws without a retaliatory motivation,” the court continues. Basically, since the law itself does not facially “impinge on any constitutional rights” a purportedly retaliatory motive does not matter.
“No one reading the text of the challenged laws would suppose them directed against Disney. The laws do not mention Disney…the secondary problem is that the laws’ effects are not limited to Disney. The laws are directed at a special development district in which Disney operates. But as Disney acknowledges, it is not the district’s only landowner, and other landowners within the district are affected by the same laws.”
At the end of the day, under the law of this Circuit, “courts shouldn’t look to a law’s legislative history to find an illegitimate motivation for an otherwise constitutional statute.” Because that is what Disney seeks, its claim fails as a matter of law.
Following the Order, Disney issued this statement: “This is an important case with serious implications for the rule of law, and it will not end here. If left unchallenged, this would set a dangerous precedent and give license to states to weaponize their official powers to punish the expression of political viewpoints they disagree with. We are determined to press forward with our case.”
This statement is vague, probably purposeful. This could be construed to mean that Disney plans on appealing, which would go to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The problem with that, though, is that a lot of the precedent in this order–in fact, the main decision cited–is from the 11th Circuit. So it’s hard to see that path working out for the company.
It’s also possible that they’re referring to the state case between CFTOD and Disney. It’s been a while since I dug into the specifics of that case, but if I recall correctly, it revolved around whether notice for the Development Agreements made between the company and former RCID was defective.
Turning to commentary, we have what’s seemingly an unpopular opinion. That it’s possible for Walt Disney World to be morally correct–that this sets a dangerous precedent that could have a chilling effect on speech. That it’s not difficult to envision a shoe is on the other foot scenario where a liberal governor punishes a conservative company–and think that would also be a bad thing that we shouldn’t want to see happen.
But, with that said, that it’s also possible for Walt Disney World to be wrong in continuing to pursue this–that this standoff with the state staying in the news is bad for business (see Disney’s Reputation Falls Further). That, at this point, they are not “winning over” new customers by continuing to engage in culture wars, and are instead reminding ones they’ve alienated of that. That a lot of Disney’s past success has come as a cultural unifier that has found a way to be trusted by and resonate with people of all persuasions and walks of life.
I know many of you disagree with this because you’ve said as much in the past. That’s fair enough. This is a big legal question with significant stakes and a lot of entrenched opinions about Florida and/or Disney overstepping. Personally, I think it’s possible to believe all of that and also that it benefits no one for the state and its biggest business to be engaged in a standoff, embroiled in controversy, and wasting millions of dollars on a legal fight. The only people winning in this matter are the lawyers and the rage farmers who traffic in divisiveness.
Ultimately, I look at Disney’s previous standoff with another state as illustrative for a good shoe on the other foot example. It’s easy to forget, but Bob Iger resigned from California Governor Gavin Newsom’s Economic Recovery Task Force back in October 2020 due to tensions between that state and Disneyland. That was a bitter battle at the time, and one that cost Disney dearly in not being able to reopen its Anaheim parks.
Since then, Iger has made inroads improving Disney’s relationship with California. As a result, Newsom has become an ally to Disney, making overtures to get the company to increase its presence in the state. The next step out west is getting DisneylandForward approved, which should happen this year. Disney has done a great job of community outreach in both the City of Anaheim and the state.
Regardless of how you assign blame in that battle, the end result was decidedly “not good” for Disney and it definitely “is good” that Disney has done the hard work of repairing the relationship, irrespective of whether the company was right or wrong in the first place. Yet another example of the Doctrine of What’s Done is Done.
That is precisely what I want to see happen in Florida. It doesn’t matter what opinions you hold of Bob Iger or Ron DeSantis. That doesn’t change the fact that Walt Disney World is absolutely huge for Florida’s economic engine. It is mutually advantageous for the company and the state to repair their relationship.
Disney wants to invest billions of dollars into Florida and, presumably, the state wants that, too. So even as the state case and a potential appeal here go on, I truly hope that Iger and DeSantis, or at least representatives from Florida and Disney, are working behind closed doors to fix things and move forward. Everyone loses and no one wins when these states and one of their largest businesses are at odds.
Planning a Walt Disney World trip? Learn about hotels on our Walt Disney World Hotels Reviews page. For where to eat, read our Walt Disney World Restaurant Reviews. To save money on tickets or determine which type to buy, read our Tips for Saving Money on Walt Disney World Tickets post. Our What to Pack for Disney Trips post takes a unique look at clever items to take. For what to do and when to do it, our Walt Disney World Ride Guides will help. For comprehensive advice, the best place to start is our Walt Disney World Trip Planning Guide for everything you need to know!
YOUR THOUGHTS
If you’ve read all or part of the Order Granting Motions to Dismiss in favor of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis & Friends, what’s your take as a matter of law? Any reaction to the latest season of the Reedy Creek Improvement District drama? Hope this escalating battle starts to de-escalate soon so we can focus again on the fun of the parks? Keep the comments civil, and avoid personal attacks or perpetuating pointless culture wars. Respectfully debating the change is totally fine, but don’t attack others or troll for controversy. That’s why Facebook was invented.
Hopefully it draws it to a close. Disney just needs to go back to being Disney. Any time I see a Disney movie release upcoming I assume it’s a lecture disguised as a movie. That’s not to say there shouldn’t be any cultural commentary whatsoever but what they’ve waded into is nonsense and lecturing
Aye, and the changes they made to rides are terrible. On Jungle Cruise, the sunken boat scene is funny, but the Trader Sam gift shop at the end is an example of what colonialism did to native peoples around the world, far worse than the previous display of a tribal group. If it had been an original scene and not installed against the current hyper-political times we live in it would have been amusing versus sad.
What’s next, attempts to change the perfect Treehouse because in the book they poisoned a whole troop of monkeys even though that was not even hinted at in the movie and it was for self-protection?
As long as Bob, or his clones, are at Disney, ridiculous will ensue.
“[Political involvement] can be distracting, and it can have a negative impact on the company. And to the extent that I can work to kind of quiet things down, I’m going to do that.” Bob Iger.
All Disney fans WIN when Disney stays out of politics. We all want Disney to stick around. Stop pushing Disney to fight these battles, they are not here to fight. Disney is here to entertain. You are only hurting yourself (and all Disney fans) if you ruin the company we all love by pushing them to get involved in these matters.
Yes, this is the way!
I can understand the comment about staying out of politics completely. So many days, I wish that I could turn off politics! However, the time is always right to do the right thing. Allowing hate to flourish and not speaking up against it is the same as tacit support for it. Those who have the influence need to use it for good – we all need to do so much better. I respect that Disney said something at a time when something needed to be said, which wasn’t happening from other theme parks. Even with this legal loss, I have much more respect for them compared to those who were silent.
Umm, there was no hate involved in any of this, up until the company made a political statement where none was warranted. It was people buying into the slanderous nonsense about the bill that were in the wrong. Was the bill necessary in any real way? I don’t know. But my parents are both retired teachers/administrator and I have heard a lot of stories about things in the schools that never made the news that would make you sick to your stomach.
I have to disagree with your statement that Iger “picked the fight”. He did not. This all started with the Governor not liking statements made by Disney and decided to use the government to punish the company. If the Governor hadn’t been running for president, none of this would have happened.
I don’t think Bob Iger picked the fight. How could he have? Chapek was CEO when it started. I think DeSantis was salivating over the prospect of a fight, and Chapek gave him exactly what he wanted. And I also think that all of that was predictable–and there should’ve been a defter approach because Disney knew DeSantis was going to pounce if Chapek didn’t handle the statement delicately.
Finally, I think that Iger has largely played his cards well on this when speaking publicly. Once the damage was done, he spoke eloquently and (I think) was fairly persuasive. Since saying his piece, he has largely backed away from this in interviews and tried to reiterate that he wants to work with Florida and invest in the state. My hope is that he’s doing even more than that behind the scenes.
“If the Governor hadn’t been running for president, none of this would have happened.”
Definitely agree with that.
Agree with you on that Tom. Chapek stepped in it and Ronnie-Boy piled more on. Weird behavior for DeSantis in the first place and yes, the only motivation I can see is political aspirations but even then it is bizarre, as it was going to irritate half of the voters either way and in this case, cost him votes he might’ve been able to get while not gaining him any he wouldn’t have gotten already. It just makes no sense.
I respect your analysis, but disagree with your desired outcome. California’s beef with Disney was, at its core, an argument between public safety versus economic cost. Florida’s beef with Disney is, at its core, an effort to shut up a large, dissenting voice objecting to a (for many) objectionable piece of legislature that targets segments of Disney’s customer and employee base. The two are not the same except at the highest level, and making peace with DeSantis means–to many–tacitly endorsing said policies.
Basically, we’re at the point of the so-called “culture wars” where things have become existential: one side says they have a right to exist and pursue the American dream; the other side says they do not because they are wicked and children must be protected from even the knowledge of them. I certainly don’t expect Disney to go bare-knuckled for their LGBT+ workers and customers, but I don’t expect them to yield the field to DeSantis & co either–because /that/ would be a betrayal of their long-standing brand, IMO.
To be clear, this order is absolutely not my desired outcome. I wanted Disney to win. If there’s a realistically viable path forward, I don’t take issue with pursuing an appeal. I’d probably wait out DeSantis, but there’s a reason executives are paid the big bucks and I’m just a dude with a blog. They may believe, correctly even, that they have a strong case and likelihood of prevailing on appeal–and ample business justifications for pursuing one.
With that said, Disney can advocate on behalf of its employees and interests without a public battle; they have a highly effective lobbying apparatus. That’s exactly what Disney was doing here before all of this spilled out into public and people demanded that Chapek make a statement. That’s the point at which the culture war component of this began playing out in predictable fashion. To each their own, but I’ll take effective-but-invisible action over loud-but-ineffectual words.
Sorry, I didn’t mean this is what you wanted, I was just referring to your desire to see Disney take a less public stance. But I take your meaning, and can certainly agree to a point about the desire for effective–albeit quieter–action versus public statements that take up all the oxygen while not accomplishing much on their own. But like I said, this is existential for some people, and I certainly understand Disney employees and customers–especially the ones who live (or were about to be forced to live) in Florida–wanting the Mouse to clarify where they stood. It’s the times we live in, sadly.
Gotcha–and fair enough.
I think it’s foolish to expect corporations to occupy that role or think it’ll produce positive results, but I also get it. A lot of people (understandably!) have lost faith in our institutions, feel abandoned, etc–as you say, it’s a sad sign of the times we live in.
Well, a false perception of public safety anyway, much like a whole lot of CA politics which unconstitutionally target the civil rights of all people every day.
I’m surprised to learn you can openly pass laws to punish people for constitutionally protected speech as long as the law itself is constitutional. This doesn’t appeal to my sense of what is just.
I agree with your assessment, Tom, but I’m still disappointed. I just really want to see someone knock DeSantis down a peg (or several) and was hoping Disney’s much-feared legal team might be the ones to do it. Disney getting rid of the “board” of puppets would have been some delicious icing on the cake (or, I guess, on DeSantis’ humble pie). Oh well, I guess not all dreams come true, lol.
I suspect his presidential campaign accomplished knocking him down a peg more than any legal outcome here ever could’ve. A decision in Disney’s favor would not have come this early in the game–it would’ve been long after it “mattered” from that perspective. And regardless, DeSantis got his mileage out of milking this for its value in the culture war. That was way bigger than any decision ever was going to be.
Agree with your analysis Tom.
Hope for Disney’s sake they take this “quiet, under the radar” loss as a win and move on.
They have much bigger problems as Tom’s pointed out in his many articulate articles such as the 10 things Disney needs to fix, etc, especially in light of Universal’s momentum.
2025 will be here before you know it.
Despite wanting to not hear about this stuff on a regular basis, I find it terrifying that a judge basically allowed a posturing governor/president wannabe with anger management issues to use state laws to punish a private company for their speech. What’s done is done? Goodness, if that’s how we decide matters, how does progress ever happen? We have seen what happens when loons in high places try and weaponize government. I understand why your Canadian readers are glad to be in Canada!
While I take your overall point, I would say that progress happens through legislation. (Well, not in this particular scenario, but generally speaking.)
Courts interpret and apply the law to resolve disputes; they do not enact laws. Legislating from the bench is not ideal, even when the end result is deemed just or right. I’m not suggesting this order is not legislating from the bench–or vice versa–I don’t have the necessary knowledge or expertise to know.
Well I guess you haven’t been paying attention to what federal agencies have been doing for the last 15 years then, especially the last four years. And a lot of state governors have taken unethical and even illegal action against companies. Hell, Noisome in CA is exactly the same as Ronnie DeSantis in that regard, as Tom noted, with his vindictive virus mania and his continuous civil rights violations.
No, I hope Disney just keeps on trucking and starts making better decisions on how to move forward and spend money on park investments. And by that I mean new attractions and lands, not ruining classic or awesome things for absurd reasons. I’m not so worried about what Universal does, as they are not on equal footing with Disney and likely never will be, the Harry Potter stuff notwithstanding…
Colleen,
I suggest you do your history on the Reedy Creek Governing District which is the 65 sq miles of WDW. Before I get into it I want you to know I am a HUGE Disney Fan, but more recently defining myself as a “vintage” Disney Fan. I like my old Disney and not the new. Disney’s self governess for over 50 years served a major purpose in creating Disney World, it was great, it was actually an empire. Just like recently loosing the copywrites on the early Mickey, Disney Art, etc Florida has hundreds of “Theme Type” Parks that do not have the pleasure of what Disney once had. The clock ran out. Chapek & Iger have decided to step into the political arena that has a far left agenda. They should have stayed neutral, that’s what made Disney right for ALL. These two individuals do not understand that “Disney” was built on the backs of families with traditional values. When you take a far side… left or right you tick people off in the opposite side. What was done between the Governor and Iger should not have come to where this esculated. One of the first thing Iger said when he took over again was; “we need to get back to the middle”! He did not do that. As a person who has negotiated multi-million dollar contract these two teams should have come to the table a long time ago. Just keep in mind Disney took the first step in this. Both parties dug in heels and both parties have done things that they should not have. Disney comes down as the looser in this as just like BudLight, and others Go Woke… Go Broke. In essence Disney Fans become the loosers. For the last few years now all the Fans get are Park Price Increase, Perks taken away, Merchandise that is awful, and the WORST movies in Disney History. Every movie has to have a political message. I also find it strange that this article shows Iger sucking up to th worst governor in all 50 states in my entire life-time. Iger has a head on his shoulders he saved the Pixar deal, he does have accomplishments. BUT DO WHAT YOU SAY. MOVE DISNEY BACK TO THE MIDDLE. I have so much on this I just don’t know where to begin.
More than anything? I think that the bruised egos of the men in charge Chapek/Iger and DeSantis are the main problem here.
There was a way for Disney to respectfully state their opinion as a company that they failed to do. And there was a way for DeSantis to focus on other more important issues to his constituents (like property taxes) than to have a hissy fit reguarding one of Florida’s most important businesses. Seems like a failure of leadership across the board.
Very good point. These guys should focus on more important things in life!
The judge Allen Winsor is an unqualified Trump pick who rules strictly on political lines and has attempted to restrict voting rights, LGBTQ+ rights, reproductive freedom, environmental protections, and gun safety. He is yet another Federalist Society member that Trump packed the courts with – Federalist Society members made up 80% of Trump’s court nominees despite just representing 4% of US legal professionals.
The US legal system became an extreme partisan joke under Trump. This is not a victory for US constitutional law, it’s another example of how it is being perverted.
That’s…almost funny in its absurdity. Come on, man!
You are welcome to check out Allen Winsor’s judicial track record for itself, and you are also welcome to check out the Trump administration’s record of packing the courts with unqualified candidates who belong to the Federalist Society for yourself. It’s public knowledge easily found with a simple search and also easily verified with multiple quantified sources.
I think the working it out part requires rational actors on both sides. Time will tell if that’s even possible here. Like you, I agree it might be best for Disney to let this go especially if it’s not actually hindering their plans going forward, but for me it’s because they can wait to see who they’re dealing with in three years after DeSantis’ term limit hits. Even if it’s another Republican governor, which in FL is most likely, historically conservatives have been pro big business. I could definitely see someone new coming and in and being willing to play ball with Disney . . . for a price, of course.
Also, you never know with the 11th Circuit. It depends on what panel they draw. I don’t think a lot of people were predicting the Andrew Warren result (Hillsborough Co. prosecutor removal case), including apparently Warren himself. And that’s not the only time the 11th has, shockingly, put down DeSantis. Yes, a lot of Winsor’s ruling here relied on 11th Circuit precedent, but there’s also the possibility that things were cherry-picked or misinterpreted (not saying it was as I’m not up to speed on FL constitutional law in this area, just that the panel may or may not agree with Winsor’s reading of things). Is it likely they would side with Disney here? No. Impossible? Also no.
That’s a very good point. I haven’t done the necessary reading into the cited cases, let alone the relevant precedent that was not cited in the order.
It’s probably also fair to say that this would’ve played out differently if decided by Walker.
As an attorney, I understand the Court’s reasoning but it is problematic. There is the school of legal thought that you interpret a statute by itself without any consideration of intent, motive, etc.
The problem is the potential for abuse, to engage in unconstitutional retribution through racially valid legislation.
Imagine the government hated Tom Bricker… so they passed a law imposing extra fees on “commercial blogs that focus on theme parks that are owner operated by parents of newborns if one of the parents has ever been admitted to the practice of law.”
Such legislation is neutral in its face — it applies to everyone. Surely the government can impose taxes and fees on internet users.
Of course, the law is designed in a way to impose fees on only 1 blogger…
And that’s the thing with Reedy Creek. There are lots of special districts in Florida. This law was written to change only 1 of the districts. I do believe a law should get extra scrutiny when it targets a single individual / corporation.
I’d agree that it’s problematic and could have a chilling effect. They do specifically differentiate this case from religion and race-based legislation in the order (starting at the bottom of page 10), though.
The biggest issue for me is hanging their hat on this law not “explicitly” targeting Disney–that close enough doesn’t count. I think that, no matter where you stand on Disney vs. DeSantis, it is patently obvious to any reasonable person that the law in question is aimed at targeting only Disney. That’s a problem. Or at least, it should be! The question is whether there’s case law (beyond what’s cited) that supports that.
When faced with an authoritarian retaliation against free speech you either fight it or wait for it to happen again. You’re suggesting Disney simply roll over? There is much more than profit and shareholder value at stake here. Courage and perseverance are needed.
I am suggesting that Disney does not exist for the purpose of fighting for free speech. Even if I agree that there’s more at stake here than profit and shareholder value–and I do–it doesn’t matter. Disney should only do things that are in its business interests–if that includes fighting to restore RCID, then so be it–power forward with the other case and an appeal.
Disney wants to invest billions of dollars in Florida. Then do it! Build some rides, sell some hotdogs, make a hell of a a lot of money, and stfu! E.g. Universal. Honestly wtf were they thinking to begin with. They’re not legislators. It’s business, just stfu. They lost, move on and get back to business. Idiots
Funny you mentioned California – that’s what I kept thinking back to during all of this. California went head to head with Disney during Covid – so much so that Disney pulled operations and planned to build a huge Lake Nona project in Florida. Now Disney is going head to head with Florida and is in the loving arms of California again, pulling out of the Lake Nona project.
I am a huge Disney fan and obviously still side with Disney on this one. I worry what this new district will do to Disney in the long term.
All in all, I am not surprised a republican appointed judge sided with a republican governor.
Now that DeSantis has dropped presidential aspirations, we can only hope the rhetoric will be toned down going forward. What we don’t know is the wild-card activists who were appointed to the CFTOD who have made public statements indicating they are looking forward to punishing Disney for being “woke”.
I doubt they are going to care about DeSantis’ presidential bid, and are more interested in making culture war headlines. I’m not exactly sure how the CFTOD works, but I imagine the next time Disney wants to start a major construction project this will all come to a head.
To his credit (?), DeSantis already did quiet down the rhetoric. So did Iger. They both became more deferential to one another, and appeared willing to put it behind them. I think the political “value” of this battle pretty much exhausted itself by late last spring. That isn’t to say DeSantis won’t take a victory lap–he absolutely will. But I’d bet it’ll be a quick one.
Even the people on the CFTOD have been quieter in the last several months about Disney. However, some of them have had their own issues, so they probably don’t want to attract more of a spotlight.
Going off the fact that sex marker changes were just banned on Florida ID cards over the weekend, I’d say his policies in general are still going full steam ahead.
Finally, common sense prevails. Now Bob, take some advice from Elsa and “Let It Go.”
Honestly think Disney has a point and can hopefully find a way to pursue this in the future. Ultimately however I am glad both sides just shut up as you eloquently put it lol. Tired of the dispute snd want to hear more positive news
“Disney has a point”
That can be true (and I’d even agree that it is!), but that does not necessarily mean they have a liable path to victory in court. In which case, why keep going?
Have to wonder if this impacted his presidential aspirations… lots of mouse fan is the US.
Based on the polling among primary voters, I doubt it had much of a negative impact. I know that’s not what Disney fans want to hear, though.
(I do think it would’ve negatively impacted him had he made it past the primary, but the same could be said for a lot of things politicians say/do for the sake of getting the nomination. We’ve created a system that incentivizes polarization.)
There’s a lot us out their who have been Disney fans their entire lives, but are still glad that they faced some consequences for getting political.
I strongly suspect that most people who are mad at DeSantis about this fight were already against him for other reasons. And likely not even eligible to vote in a Republican primary, much less planning on voting for him.
Quite likely, Greg! While the company should not have bought into the completely wrong characterization of the bill in the first place, Ron could’ve done better to rebut the nonsense and Chapek was just the wrong guy to be in #1 slot at that time.
I’m so happy to live in Canada.