Lawyer Jenna Ellis said that although she disagrees with Disney’s opposition to the so-called ‘Don’t Say Gay’ law, Florida’s move to punish the company amounts to an infringement of its First Amendment right to free speech.
‘I’ve openly disagreed with Disney’s corporate statements and openly lauded Florida Republicans for their Parental Rights In Education bill,’ Ellis told talk radio host Dan Caplis on Friday.
‘But where they crossed the line constitutionally… is that Ron DeSantis and Florida’s Republicans are now retaliating against Disney for exercising their constitutionally protected rights to freedom of speech,’ argued Ellis.
‘Imagine if this were California, that Governor [Gavin] Newsom was directly targeting for retaliation a conservative company for articulating conservative views on California politics. Everyone on the right would be the first to denounce that as petty tyranny,’ she continued.
Ellis argued that DeSantis and Republicans in Florida’s legislature had ‘openly admitted and in fact bragged about retaliation being their motive’.
Indeed, the high-profile governor has hammered Disney for coming out against the education bill, portraying the company as a purveyor of ‘woke’ ideology that injects inappropriate subjects into children’s entertainment.
In a fundraising pitch sent out this week, DeSantis told supporters, ‘It took a look under the hood to see what Disney has become to truly understand their inappropriate influence.’
‘You’re a corporation based in Burbank, California, and you’re gonna marshal your economic might to attack the parents of my state,’ DeSantis said Friday before signing the bill into law at a ceremony in Hialeah Gardens.
‘We view that as a provocation, and we’re going to fight back against that,’ he added.
To Ellis, those statements add up to a ripe opportunity for Disney to mount a legal challenge.
This is a textbook First Amendment retaliation claim that I think Disney is likely to proceed on, and they’ll win.’
Ellis went on to say that she supported private citizens who want to punish Disney by boycotting the company’s products or selling their stock in the firm, but said it was out of bounds for the government to retaliate.
‘This is all about the government taking an unconstitutional action because the government is obligated to protect free speech for everyone,’ she said.
On Twitter, Ellis even extended an ‘open offer’ to represent Disney in a suit against Florida — although the company, which is worth $220 billion, undoubtedly has a deep bench of its own lawyers examining legal options.
‘This is weaponizing government to penalize a corporation for exercising constitutionally protected speech,’ she tweeted.
‘That crosses the line between playing politics and a government acting illegally.’
The new Florida law is expected to have huge tax implications for Disney and further sour the relationship between the Republican-led government and a major political player whose theme parks have transformed Orlando into one of the world’s most popular tourist destinations.
For DeSantis, the attack on Disney is the latest front in a culture war waged over policies involving race, gender and the coronavirus, battles he has harnessed to make himself one of the most popular Republicans in the country and a likely 2024 presidential candidate.
The law would eliminate the Reedy Creek Improvement District, as the 55-year-old Disney government is known, as well as a handful of other similar districts by June 2023.
The measure does allow for the districts to be reestablished, leaving an avenue to renegotiate the future of the deal that allows the company to provide services such as zoning, fire protection, utilities and infrastructure.
DeSantis said Friday that the company would end up paying more taxes than it currently does and that the law isn’t expected to cause tax increases for residents around Disney. He gave no additional details.
The dispute began with Disney´s criticism of a new law barring instruction on sexual orientation and gender identity in kindergarten through third grade as well as instruction that is not ‘age appropriate or developmentally appropriate.’
Share on Facebook «||» Share on Twitter «||» Share on Reddit «||» Share on LinkedIn