luckyone wrote:

TriJets wrote:

stratclub wrote:

DeSantis did the right thing. Covid is the most horrific lie ever forced on the human race and what Communist Democrat governors were using the mandates that have no basis in medical science to destroy their states economies.

Free speech isn't the issue. The issue is sex education and Critical Race Theory being taught starting in Kindergarten. Some of the text books are very explicit and push homosexuality and questioning the children's gender. What the curriculum is teaching is something that is completely unsuitable for small children. CRT teaches that all white people are racist and all POC are all victims.

What about COVID is a lie? As someone who worked in healthcare and treated COVID patients all through the pandemic and who lost a family member to COVID, I'm curious what you think you know that the rest of us don't.

I'll tell you what the individual doesn't appear to know -- that during the worst of this past winter the situation was so precarious between the numbers of patients hospitalized with COVID and staff members sick that the national guard had to be called in.

bpatus297 wrote:

scbriml wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Just because Republicans didn't like Kapernick and were vocal against him doesn't mean they disagreed with his right to day what he did.

Then where did all the "disrespecting the flag" and "dishonouring the military" BS come from?

Didn't Trump ask for him to be fired?

That would be the repercussions of his actions. No one said he couldn't say it.

N867DA wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Then where did all the "disrespecting the flag" and "dishonouring the military" BS come from?

Didn't Trump ask for him to be fired?

That would be the repercussions of his actions. No one said he couldn't say it.

An extension of this logic is that a person can do whatever he or she wants want, even if it's illegal, as long as he or she is willing to face the legal or social ramifications. Any right can be infringed upon, because hostile backlash or loss of ensuing liberty and prosperity is simply a repercussion.. Even murder can be construed as an OK action to take if the perpetrator is willing and able to face the repercussions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect

bpatus297 wrote:

N867DA wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

That would be the repercussions of his actions. No one said he couldn't say it.

An extension of this logic is that a person can do whatever he or she wants want, even if it's illegal, as long as he or she is willing to face the legal or social ramifications. Any right can be infringed upon, because hostile backlash or loss of ensuing liberty and prosperity is simply a repercussion.. Even murder can be construed as an OK action to take if the perpetrator is willing and able to face the repercussions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect

Except on huge difference, the freedom of speech is protected in the US Constitution as an inalienable right, murder is not.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

bpatus297 wrote:

N867DA wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

That would be the repercussions of his actions. No one said he couldn't say it.

An extension of this logic is that a person can do whatever he or she wants want, even if it's illegal, as long as he or she is willing to face the legal or social ramifications. Any right can be infringed upon, because hostile backlash or loss of ensuing liberty and prosperity is simply a repercussion.. Even murder can be construed as an OK action to take if the perpetrator is willing and able to face the repercussions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect

Except on huge difference, the freedom of speech is protected in the US Constitution as an inalienable right, murder is not.

casinterest wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

N867DA wrote:

An extension of this logic is that a person can do whatever he or she wants want, even if it's illegal, as long as he or she is willing to face the legal or social ramifications. Any right can be infringed upon, because hostile backlash or loss of ensuing liberty and prosperity is simply a repercussion.. Even murder can be construed as an OK action to take if the perpetrator is willing and able to face the repercussions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect

Except on huge difference, the freedom of speech is protected in the US Constitution as an inalienable right, murder is not.

No it is not. The government can make no law abridging the freedom of speech. Private businesses can.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitutio ... _amendment


notice that last sentence about Petitioning the government for a redress of grievances? Colin Kaepernick peacefully petitioned for an address of his grievances with the government. Why were so many against him? Is the flag more valuable than the injustices perpetrated in it's name?

N867DA wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

N867DA wrote:

An extension of this logic is that a person can do whatever he or she wants want, even if it's illegal, as long as he or she is willing to face the legal or social ramifications. Any right can be infringed upon, because hostile backlash or loss of ensuing liberty and prosperity is simply a repercussion.. Even murder can be construed as an OK action to take if the perpetrator is willing and able to face the repercussions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect

Except on huge difference, the freedom of speech is protected in the US Constitution as an inalienable right, murder is not.

The government cannot infringe your right to speech, but can pass laws that target your business if you make speech against policies the government supports.
The government cannot stop you from murdering someone, but can pass laws to confine you in a prison or end your life if you commit murder.

bpatus297 wrote:

N867DA wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Except on huge difference, the freedom of speech is protected in the US Constitution as an inalienable right, murder is not.

The government cannot infringe your right to speech, but can pass laws that target your business if you make speech against policies the government supports.
The government cannot stop you from murdering someone, but can pass laws to confine you in a prison or end your life if you commit murder.

I think the first sentence is a violation of the first amendment.

N867DA wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

N867DA wrote:

The government cannot infringe your right to speech, but can pass laws that target your business if you make speech against policies the government supports.
The government cannot stop you from murdering someone, but can pass laws to confine you in a prison or end your life if you commit murder.

I think the first sentence is a violation of the first amendment.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61192982

I very strongly agree.

bpatus297 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Except on huge difference, the freedom of speech is protected in the US Constitution as an inalienable right, murder is not.

No it is not. The government can make no law abridging the freedom of speech. Private businesses can.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitutio ... _amendment


notice that last sentence about Petitioning the government for a redress of grievances? Colin Kaepernick peacefully petitioned for an address of his grievances with the government. Why were so many against him? Is the flag more valuable than the injustices perpetrated in it's name?

People were against the perceived disrespect of the USA. I fully understand the first amendment, but you pointing out the fact that businesses' aren't part of the freedom of speech has absolutely nothing to do with the point I was making. You are just trying to discredit me since I might not agree with your opinion. That is 100% what is wrong with this country right now.

casinterest wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

No it is not. The government can make no law abridging the freedom of speech. Private businesses can.



https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitutio ... _amendment


notice that last sentence about Petitioning the government for a redress of grievances? Colin Kaepernick peacefully petitioned for an address of his grievances with the government. Why were so many against him? Is the flag more valuable than the injustices perpetrated in it's name?

People were against the perceived disrespect of the USA. I fully understand the first amendment, but you pointing out the fact that businesses' aren't part of the freedom of speech has absolutely nothing to do with the point I was making. You are just trying to discredit me since I might not agree with your opinion. That is 100% what is wrong with this country right now.

So you are saying I am 100% wrong for pointing out the misinformation you use to advance your views on others? Freedom of speech is not inalienable. It is just a right that should within bounds be protected from Government interference.

bpatus297 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

People were against the perceived disrespect of the USA. I fully understand the first amendment, but you pointing out the fact that businesses' aren't part of the freedom of speech has absolutely nothing to do with the point I was making. You are just trying to discredit me since I might not agree with your opinion. That is 100% what is wrong with this country right now.

So you are saying I am 100% wrong for pointing out the misinformation you use to advance your views on others? Freedom of speech is not inalienable. It is just a right that should within bounds be protected from Government interference.

It is absolutely an inalienable right.

bpatus297 wrote:

N867DA wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

That would be the repercussions of his actions. No one said he couldn't say it.

An extension of this logic is that a person can do whatever he or she wants want, even if it's illegal, as long as he or she is willing to face the legal or social ramifications. Any right can be infringed upon, because hostile backlash or loss of ensuing liberty and prosperity is simply a repercussion.. Even murder can be construed as an OK action to take if the perpetrator is willing and able to face the repercussions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect

Except on huge difference, the freedom of speech is protected in the US Constitution as an inalienable right, murder is not.

On Feb. 8, 2023, as the Florida House was passing legislation to give DeSantis his new power, Reedy Creek’s board members signed a development agreement with the company that allowed Disney maximum developmental power over its territory.

According to the new board members, who are now known as the Central Florida Tourism Oversight board, and their attorneys, Disney is allowed the maximum possible density and building heights inside Walt Disney World. Other property owners will need Disney’s permission to expand within the district, and they and Reedy Creek leaders will need to seek Disney’s approval if they made any aesthetic changes to their properties within the district.

The district is also not allowed to permit advertisements of any companies that compete with ones that operate within Reedy Creek, board members said.

“We lose control over everything other than to maintain the roads and maintain the infrastructure,” one board member said.
[...]
“All agreements signed between Disney and the District were appropriate, and were discussed and approved in open, noticed public forums in compliance with Florida’s Government in the Sunshine law,” a spokesperson said.

WFTV worked with an independent attorney who specializes in government law to analyze the agreement Wednesday morning. Upon initial review, the attorney said the agreement appeared to be valid.

“I’m struggling to find a reason why it’s unlawful,” the attorney said, noting the type of agreement struck was normal between large developers and governments, it was properly noticed and Reedy Creek’s leadership willingly entered into it.

Tugger wrote:

Good job Disney:

On Feb. 8, 2023, as the Florida House was passing legislation to give DeSantis his new power, Reedy Creek’s board members signed a development agreement with the company that allowed Disney maximum developmental power over its territory.

According to the new board members, who are now known as the Central Florida Tourism Oversight board, and their attorneys, Disney is allowed the maximum possible density and building heights inside Walt Disney World. Other property owners will need Disney’s permission to expand within the district, and they and Reedy Creek leaders will need to seek Disney’s approval if they made any aesthetic changes to their properties within the district.

The district is also not allowed to permit advertisements of any companies that compete with ones that operate within Reedy Creek, board members said.

“We lose control over everything other than to maintain the roads and maintain the infrastructure,” one board member said.
[...]
“All agreements signed between Disney and the District were appropriate, and were discussed and approved in open, noticed public forums in compliance with Florida’s Government in the Sunshine law,” a spokesperson said.

WFTV worked with an independent attorney who specializes in government law to analyze the agreement Wednesday morning. Upon initial review, the attorney said the agreement appeared to be valid.

“I’m struggling to find a reason why it’s unlawful,” the attorney said, noting the type of agreement struck was normal between large developers and governments, it was properly noticed and Reedy Creek’s leadership willingly entered into it.

https://news.yahoo.com/power-play-disne ... 01620.html

Tugg

casinterest wrote:

Tugger wrote:

Good job Disney:

On Feb. 8, 2023, as the Florida House was passing legislation to give DeSantis his new power, Reedy Creek’s board members signed a development agreement with the company that allowed Disney maximum developmental power over its territory.

According to the new board members, who are now known as the Central Florida Tourism Oversight board, and their attorneys, Disney is allowed the maximum possible density and building heights inside Walt Disney World. Other property owners will need Disney’s permission to expand within the district, and they and Reedy Creek leaders will need to seek Disney’s approval if they made any aesthetic changes to their properties within the district.

The district is also not allowed to permit advertisements of any companies that compete with ones that operate within Reedy Creek, board members said.

“We lose control over everything other than to maintain the roads and maintain the infrastructure,” one board member said.
[...]
“All agreements signed between Disney and the District were appropriate, and were discussed and approved in open, noticed public forums in compliance with Florida’s Government in the Sunshine law,” a spokesperson said.

WFTV worked with an independent attorney who specializes in government law to analyze the agreement Wednesday morning. Upon initial review, the attorney said the agreement appeared to be valid.

“I’m struggling to find a reason why it’s unlawful,” the attorney said, noting the type of agreement struck was normal between large developers and governments, it was properly noticed and Reedy Creek’s leadership willingly entered into it.

https://news.yahoo.com/power-play-disne ... 01620.html

Tugg

You gotta love that a private company has worked hard to screw over the GOP that is trying to control it.

luckyone wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Tugger wrote:

Good job Disney:

https://news.yahoo.com/power-play-disne ... 01620.html

Tugg

You gotta love that a private company has worked hard to screw over the GOP that is trying to control it.

Possibly a quiet promise by the people involved to effectively give Disney more or less what they already had in order to stave off a lawsuit and Disney sending jobs elsewhere while saddling Florida tax payers with a lot of debt, all for the mere inconvenience of being DeSantis’ political punching bag. And save some face for DeSantis in what is sure to be a charge that he is willing to punish job creators who disagree with him.

Tugger wrote:

Good job Disney:

On Feb. 8, 2023, as the Florida House was passing legislation to give DeSantis his new power, Reedy Creek’s board members signed a development agreement with the company that allowed Disney maximum developmental power over its territory.

According to the new board members, who are now known as the Central Florida Tourism Oversight board, and their attorneys, Disney is allowed the maximum possible density and building heights inside Walt Disney World. Other property owners will need Disney’s permission to expand within the district, and they and Reedy Creek leaders will need to seek Disney’s approval if they made any aesthetic changes to their properties within the district.

The district is also not allowed to permit advertisements of any companies that compete with ones that operate within Reedy Creek, board members said.

“We lose control over everything other than to maintain the roads and maintain the infrastructure,” one board member said.
[...]
“All agreements signed between Disney and the District were appropriate, and were discussed and approved in open, noticed public forums in compliance with Florida’s Government in the Sunshine law,” a spokesperson said.

WFTV worked with an independent attorney who specializes in government law to analyze the agreement Wednesday morning. Upon initial review, the attorney said the agreement appeared to be valid.

“I’m struggling to find a reason why it’s unlawful,” the attorney said, noting the type of agreement struck was normal between large developers and governments, it was properly noticed and Reedy Creek’s leadership willingly entered into it.

https://news.yahoo.com/power-play-disne ... 01620.html

Tugg

That declaration is valid until “21 years after the death of the last survivor of the descendants of King Charles III, king of England,” according to the document.

ThePointblank wrote:

The fun part:

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/os ... story.html

That declaration is valid until “21 years after the death of the last survivor of the descendants of King Charles III, king of England,” according to the document.

I gotta chuckle at this. Declaration is valid until 21 years after the death of the last survivor of the descendants of King Charles III? So the only way the declaration ends is if somehow, someone were to kill off all of the descendants of King Charles III, and then wait 21 years?