Home News and Politics Ron DeSantis and Co-Defendants Resort to Fairy Tales and Pixie Dust in Disney Lawsuit, Revealing Extreme Clickbait Tactics

Ron DeSantis and Co-Defendants Resort to Fairy Tales and Pixie Dust in Disney Lawsuit, Revealing Extreme Clickbait Tactics

0
Ron DeSantis and Co-Defendants Resort to Fairy Tales and Pixie Dust in Disney Lawsuit, Revealing Extreme Clickbait Tactics

Disney Lawsuit Against Governor DeSantis and New Regulators: A Tale of Make-Believe and Creative Storytelling

The federal lawsuit filed by Disney against Governor Ron DeSantis and its new regulators presents arguments that would impress even Walt Disney himself with their creativity and make-believe storytelling.

The defendants in this case seem to disregard the facts, spanning over a year, that suggest DeSantis and the Legislature took retaliatory action against Disney for lobbying against what critics referred to as the “Don’t Say Gay” law. Instead, the defendants pretend as if these events never occurred.

One particularly interesting argument made by Governor DeSantis presents a fantastical view of the political landscape in Florida, comparing his influence to that of a “lobbyist.”

In the lawsuit, Disney is suing DeSantis, members of the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District (CFTOD), and a former executive agency head. The entertainment giant claims that DeSantis retaliated against them for opposing him on the controversial Parental Rights in Education bill, an action that may violate the First Amendment and our democratic ideals.

The issue at hand is the reshaping of the panel overseeing Disney. DeSantis and the Legislature dissolved the previous regulatory body and replaced it with DeSantis’ own appointees, forming the CFTOD.

One of the filings addresses Disney’s claim of infringement on their freedom of speech by all defendants. In a separate filing, DeSantis requests to be dismissed from the case, arguing that Disney lacks standing to sue him, among other threshold matters.

While the legal questions will be settled by the judge, the facts are clear for all to see. Most of what transpired has been extensively covered by the media, and the defendants’ attempts to evade these facts are suspicious. Their arguments primarily focus on the unique structure of Disney’s regulatory system while conveniently ignoring the well-documented authoritarian campaign that preceded the lawsuit.

DeSantis’ argument suggests that Disney’s targeted legislation was the result of mere “pixie dust,” claiming that the state determined the need for reform. These versions of events read like tales straight out of “Fantasia.” However, anyone who followed the news in the past 18 months knows that the Legislature did not simply decide on overdue reform, nor did they act in pursuit of “adequate representation” unless packing the panel with DeSantis’ friends counts as representation.

A simple Google search or a glance at Disney’s complaint would reveal more of the factual basis for their dispute. For example, DeSantis publicly warned Disney that their involvement in politics would have consequences. Quotes from DeSantis’ memoir and statements from legislators also shed light on the coordinated efforts against Disney, making it clear that they were singled out by the legislation.

Disney presents a wealth of evidence in its lawsuit, leaving no doubt that the judge will have to grapple with the motivations behind the legislation that transformed Disney’s regulatory structure.

The defendants’ failure to address these damning statements and facts in their briefs raises eyebrows. While not required to present bad facts voluntarily, the defendants’ avoidance of these issues is suspect. The briefing stage is an opportunity to manipulate the truth, yet the defendants chose to pretend these events never occurred.

DeSantis’ special brief, addressing whether he should be part of the suit, adds another layer to this tale. He argues that Disney lacks standing to sue him since the CFTOD appointments have already been made, rendering a hypothetical injunction against him irrelevant. Therefore, he downplays his own power and influence, claiming that he is not really in charge of the CFTOD, despite hand-picking every board member.

This argument appears absurd. DeSantis, who previously declared himself as the “new Sheriff in town” when signing the legislation, now suggests that his connection to Disney’s regulatory reform is solely limited to appointing board members. This remote connection, he argues, disqualifies him from being a proper defendant.

It’s as if DeSantis is pretending to be a lobbyist, while portraying the CFTOD as the true government actors. However, his vast influence and control over various aspects of government throughout his administration defy this comparison. Even independently elected prosecutors have had their discretion limited in Florida under DeSantis’ rule.

The unfolding of this part of the case will be fascinating. DeSantis’ entire governing philosophy seems to be on trial with the standing question. While he may be legally correct, it appears fundamentally unfair that he enjoys all the benefits and none of the consequences. However, DeSantis has previously succeeded in a standing defense, citing a case where Judge Mark Walker, an Obama appointee, authored the order.

Ironically, DeSantis removed Judge Walker from the Disney case earlier in the litigation, showing little regard for other authorities. Now, he cites Walker’s work to support his argument that he isn’t as much of a control freak as he may seem.

And they all lived happily ever after.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here