Let the fun and games begin - Reedy Creek (News)

Thanks for posting.  You just have to read the intro to the Motion to Dismiss and the intro to the Opposition filed by Disney to see how differently each frames the broader issues (which at the end of the day, may or may not have anything to do with winning or losing the suit). DeSantis frames the problem as righting a grievous wrong done in the 1960’s when Florida created Reedy Creek.  Disney is all about retaliation by the government against it for exercising First Amendment rights.


Maybe DeSantis would be happy if there was a Time Machine that would have meant Reedy Creek was not formed, Disney World had not been built and thus, no one at Disney would have had a reason to object to the “Don’t Say Gay” bill.  But then, of course, this message board would not exist and , wait …. I feel it fading ….. must finish my thought before ………..

Actually, I was just reading a review of the new musical version of Back to the Future set to open on Broadway next month.  Like the movie, it apparently features a photo with the fading family members as Marty works to repair his parents’ relationship so that they will marry and he will be born.   I haven’t seen the Star Trek episode you referenced but I enjoyed the original Star Trek episode called City on the Edge of Forever which was a classic time travel story. Written by Harlan Ellison, it premiered in 1967.  I am probably dating myself big time!

Judge dismisses Disney’s lawsuit on Friday.

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press has filed an amicus curiae brief with the Federal District Court regarding Disney v. DeSantis et al.

Amicus briefs to Federal district (as opposed to appellate) courts are not very familiar to me as a non-lawyer.  However, I found this, for those who wonder about them:

www.gibsondunn.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Shapiro-Crain-LeSavage-Tips-for-District-Court-Amicus-Brief-Success-New-York-Law-Journal-12-23-2020.pdf .

As an elevator summary of the foregoing, consider the following comments by the authors:

"At a high level, amicus parties should bring a unique perspective that leverages the expertise of the party submitting the brief and adds value by drawing on materials or focusing on issues not addressed in detail in the parties’ submissions, instead of repeating arguments that the parties or other amici curiae have already raised. District courts are also more likely to be moved by the views of well-known and respected organizations."  [Emphasis added.]

Vis-a-vis expertise and being "well-known and respected", The Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press contains some real journalistic heavy weights, including its Steering Committee Chair (Stephen J. Adler, former editor-in-chief of both Reuters and BusinessWeek), Steering Committee members (e.g., Josh Gerstein, a White House reporter for Politico, who "covered the Supreme Court nominations of Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, the Obama administration’s little-heralded crackdown on leaks and the surprisingly icy relationship between the press and the Obama White House"), and Honorary Leadership Council members (e.g., Judy Woodruff of PBS, recipient of the 2003 Leonard Zeidenberg First Amendment Award of the Radio Television Digital News Association and Peabody's 2021 Journalistic Integrity Award, among many other plaudits listed in Wikipedia.)  More information may be found at

www.rcfp.org/steering-committee/ .

The Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press amicus curiae brief to the District Court may be found here:

www.rcfp.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/2023-07-28-RCFP-amicus-brief-in-Disney-v.-DeSantis.pdf .

Vis-a-vis "focusing on issues not addressed in detail in the parties’ submission" as recommended by Shapiro et al. above, beginning in its second paragraph the brief adverts the court to freedom of the press issues in addition to the freedom of speech issues discussed by Disney.  In Section III, the brief states:

"Because the threat of retaliation always hangs over the nation's newsrooms,  it is essential that this court upholds longstanding Constitutional safeguards protecting speakers from harassment by government officials.  Journalists and news organizations are always particularly vulnerable to intimidation because reporting on official activity routinely exposes them to the potential ire of public officials.  If these officials believe they can punish their perceived critics as openly and unabashedly as is alleged in the First Amended Complaint, the consequences for journalists and news media organizations -- and the free flow of information to the public -- would be dire."

It is interesting to re-read the paragraph just above in light of recent, unrelated revelations out of Washington.  The parties in Disney v. DeSantis et al. may find that their case is suddenly tied to discussions of pandemic scientific information flow control, in a way neither party intended and with very unexpected "allies" for each.

The brief is also interesting in its stress upon the requirement to take retaliatory allegations as true at the "motion to dismiss" stage of litigation, and upon "burden shifting" thereafter.  I leave those to the interested reader to pursue within the brief.

Whether or not the current amicus brief is accepted at the District Court level, I feel the brief's freedom of the press argument and its organizational source presage rough music for Florida in appellate briefs from an entire amici Philharmonic, not conducted by Donald Duck.     The brief concludes "This is a significant First Amendment case."  I agree.



 



As expected, the board operating the District formerly known as Reedy Creek Improvement District has abolished any programs advancing diversity, equity and inclusion: www.rcid.org/pr-dei/

Reading that document is like a masterclass in "spin doctoring". <-- insert correct phrase here

This is not directly related to the dispute with Disney, except that it shows the real world impact of the legislation that Disney opposed.  Indeed, in years past, Disney had a big piece of the market for public school curricula, but I think that piece began shrinking when schools stopped showing 16mm films!

Now that the “Dont Say Gay” law has been extended to middle and high school students, I understand that the AP Psychology class has been effectively banned from Florida schools this year after the College Board, which runs the AP program nationwide, refused to remove content regarding sexual orientation and gender identity. Apparently 28,000 Florida high school students took the course last year and schools have just been told by the Florida Department of Education that they cannot teach that curriculum to the students who are signed up for this Fall. www.palmbeachpost.com/story/news/education/2023/08/04/ap-psychology-in-florida-state-effectively-bans-college-level-course-for-high-school-students/70527211007/

Updated to add:  Yesterday, the Dept of Education sent a letter to school superintendents stating that the AP Psychology course could be taught in its entirety in an age-appropriate way, which is the standard under the “Don’t Say Gay” law.  www.cnn.com/2023/08/05/us/florida-ap-psychology-allowed-college-board/index.html