Unit1- Assignment- Paige Ryan
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Purdue University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
512
Subject
Law
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
2
Uploaded by GeneralTroutPerson1057
TO: DAVID FRENCH
FROM: PAIGE RYAN
SUBJECT:
In support of "Disney v. DeSantis: How Strong Is the Company's Lawsuit?"
Mr. French, In a battle of anti-trust laws meets free speech retaliation. I commend your recent article
regarding the current fight between the State of Florida and the Walt Disney Company. Others and I eagerly look to Florida to answer your question, "If the government offers some person or entity a benefit, can it also take it away?" (French, 2023)
To begin to answer your question, I introduce the premise of what speech protection looks like. In a recent paper, Francesca Procaccini presents a unique perspective. While the First Amendment lists speech protections in order, with commercial speech being the second highest importance, the true nature of speech protection is a flat sys-
tem. "Specifically, the equal protection speech receives permits the state to regulate speech to protect a safe and informed democratic discourse." (Procaccini, 2022) With this definition of speech protection in mind, we revisit the battle of Disney and DeSantis.
The Florida government voted to remove a special tax district existing for 55 years based on the company's statements regarding new legislation. The thought process is that the company's stance on the new bill will create an unsafe environment for demo-
cratic debate.
I will now return to your article, which introduces the example of Gratzianna v. Northlake
as an example of retaliatory behavior resulting from a free speech choice. I believe that this case is an example of how the actions of a company do not alter the democratic conversation of its community; this asks a larger question. "When the government is al-
lowed to take away benefits, it was never obligated to provide." (French, 2023) To this, I
would say that the nature of speech protection trumps the existence of benefits.
However, this question returns us to our original conversation; is the speech being pro-
tected or experiencing retaliation? The actions of the Florida government show apparent
maliciousness, given the timeline in which the move to remove the Reedy District aligns with 2022 statements by CEO Bob Chapek. The very nature of retaliation arises when one party stands to gain while the latter suffers. Floridia's removal of the Reedy District hit The Walt Disney Company right in the wallet. "The change, which comes into effect on June 1, 2023, is estimated to cost the corporation billions of dollars in extra annual tax payments and have a potential knock-on effect on local residents inside the special district." (Haines, 2022) Based on this fact alone, the actions were very clearly retalia-
tory.
To close out, I appreciate your well-written and succinct argument supporting the Walt Disney Company in its dispute with the Florida government. I agree that while the facts favor Disney, there is no guarantee. We can only hope that those involved in the legal
proceedings will see what the implications of a win for the government will mean for the integrity of free speech.
Regards,
Paige
References
French, David. "Disney V. DeSantis: How Strong Is the Company's Lawsuit?"
The New
York Times
, The New York Times, April 30, 2023, https://www.nytimes.com/
2023/04/30/opinion/disney-desantis-florida-lawsuit.html?searchResultPosition=2.
Haines, A. (2022). This week in tax: Article 12B is ready for use in tax
treaties.
International Tax Review
, N.PAG.
Procaccini, F. L. (2022). Equal Speech Protection.
Virginia Law Review
,
108
(2),
353-448.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help