A filing was made last week in the Disney vs DeSantis federal lawsuit by The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press – a journalist advocacy group that was founded in 1970 and seeks to protect First Amendment rights. In the filing, which was a friend-of-the-court filing asking Judge Allen C. Winsor to deny DeSantis’ Motion to Dismiss, says that DeSantis’ Motion “ask[s] this Court to depart from fundamental First Amendment precedent that prohibits government retaliation against a private speaker for commentary perceived by the state as critical”.
In the 50-page filing, The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press outlines its long history with First Amendment cases, and says that “if the State of Florida and its officials succeed in defending their actions against Disney in this case, governments across the country may be emboldened to take action against not only public companies, but journalists, reporters, and the greater news media when they exercise their First Amendment freedoms”.
The Brief of Amicus Curiae covers many of the facts outlined in Disney’s federal lawsuit against DeSantis including that the Governor said that Disney had “crossed the line” in its public statements against the Governor’s “Don’t Say Gay” bill and that he would “fight back” against the Company. Within months of Disney’s initial statement, the Florida Legislature had passed bills designed to dissolve the Reedy Creek Improvement District that oversaw the development of Disney’s vast empire of tourist offerings, and, eventually, replaced the special taxing district Board of Supervisors with hand-selected individuals picked by DeSantis to oversee development at Disney World.
When the hand-selected Board took office, they realized that Disney had entered into a decades-long development contract with the very government that they were a part of. Because the Legislature choose to simply replace the Board of Supervisors and not dissolve the District, contracts that were already in place were actually protected by the very house bill that replaced the old RCID Board. However, DeSantis and state legislators would pass another bill that would void contracts in the narrow situation that the new Board found itself in.
Going back to the brief, The Reporters Committee said that the First Amendment allegations by Disney present a “vivid example of retaliatory government action taken expressly to punish protected speech on issues of significant public concern and importance—and to deter similar speech in the future. As alleged, Governor DeSantis himself, along with a number of other Florida lawmakers, explained specifically and repeatedly that Florida was taking these steps to punish Disney for expressing opposition to a contentious law that Disney said directly affected its operations and personnel.”
The brief says that “Disney’s speech in opposition to that law falls squarely within the First Amendment’s protections”, citing Supreme Court opinions from the popular Citizens United case. It goes on to say that DeSantis’ Motion to Dismiss basically asks the court to “allow…brazen retaliation by the State of Florida for Disney’s exercise of its First Amendment rights to go unchecked”.
The Reporters Committee argues that “allowing the State of Florida’s actions here to escape constitutional scrutiny would embolden public officials to retaliate against speakers—including journalists and news media organizations—for perceived criticism or unfair statements.” They say that allowing the Disney case to be thrown out of court would make the press vulnerable to retaliation, which would be directly in opposition to the Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case.
As always, keep checking back with us here at BlogMickey.com as we continue to bring you the latest news, photos, and info from around the Disney Parks!