To what extent is Walt Disney World exempt from the laws of Florida and the United States? Many years ago, I overheard in casual conversation that Walt Disney World was essentially a country within a country, a privately-owned nation in which the laws of the U.S. don't apply. I've never been there (or any Disney property), nor have I ever been a big &quot;Disney person,&quot; so I have no firsthand experience with any of this. But now I'm adult with some understanding of the law, and it strikes me that I've never in all the intervening years stumbled across any information contradicting that statement. Walt Disney World is located within a special jurisdiction (created for Disney) called the Reedy Creek Improvement District. Per Wikpedia, this is an area of ~40 mi2, within which the Disney company has &quot;almost total autonomy,&quot; granted to it by The Florida State Legislature. Within the District, the Disney company appears to be the sole provider of law enforcement, EMS, fire-fighting, utilities &amp; sewage, and the like. Disney also controls building codes and zoning within the District. The local government seems to consist of a Board of five people, all high-ranking employees of the Disney company, &quot;elected&quot; by the other residents (all Disney employees themselves; Wikipedia suggests there are only a couple dozen such residents). It appears to me that a for-profit entertainment company has the legal authority to dictate the form and members of the local government, the laws that apply to everyone within the District (residents and visitors), and to exercise complete control over the enforcement of those laws (through its literal ownership of the police). Just to be clear: this is not a question about copyright or other intellectual property law. I'm thinking about questions like: Are people within the District protected from unreasonable search and seizure? (And is the definition of &quot;unreasonable&quot; importantly different than in the rest of the U.S.?) Are Miranda warnings required when District police arrest someone? Do people arrested by Disney police actually have any rights? Could a Disney official who lives in the District own slaves? Could a brothel operate within the District? What about an opium den, or a meth lab? Would it be illegal for a visitor to bribe a Disney official to tolerate (or even facilitate) a hub for human trafficking? If authorities in Gainesville suspected that members of Disney EMS were sexually exploiting female patients, could the District obstruct the investigation by destroying evidence and medical records, and refusing to provide Gainesville police access to the suspects? What's to stop a high-ranking Disney executive from murdering someone within the District and then wielding their position within the company, which appears tantamount to legal authority, to effect a cover-up?
It is not the case that Walt Disney World [is] essentially a country within a country, a privately-owned nation in which the laws of the U.S. don't apply. It is true that the Florid legislature has essentially created a local government controlled by Disney, and granted it exemptions from or modifications of a number of state laws. In many ways Disney World is similar to a classic &quot;Company Town&quot;. But this is not in any way an exemption from federal laws, nor can the state grant individual exemption from state laws: the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids any state to do that. Note that according to the same Wikipedia article cited in the question: Officers from Orange County, Osceola County and the Florida Highway Patrol are contracted to police the district. While the Disney Corporation no doubt has significant influence in these police departments, it does not directly control the hiring, training, and discipline of these contracted police officers. It surely does not &quot;own the police&quot;. In any suits for civil rights violations (particularly section 1983 suits) the departments and the counties and the state would be defendants, and so have an incentive to abide by the rule of law and respect civil rights. Let us look at the items suggested in the question: Are people within the District protected from unreasonable search and seizure? (And is the definition of &quot;unreasonable&quot; importantly different than in the rest of the U.S.?) Yes they are. This right is granted by the US Fourth Amendment, and imposed on the states, and all local governments, via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth. The standards for what is &quot;unreasonable&quot; and all other search and seizure law, come from US Supreme Court decisions, and Disney's police are not exempt. Nor are Florida state police operating inside Disney's district. Are Miranda warnings required when District police arrest someone? Do people arrested by Disney police actually have any rights? Yes, Miranda warnings and other constitutional rights in regard to the police are also imposed by the Federal Fourteenth Amendment, and apply fully in the Disney District, just as they do in all other parts of the US. So do any rights granted by the Florida Stare constitution, and by general Florida laws. Could a Disney official who lives in the District own slaves? No. 18 USC Chapter 77 - PEONAGE, SLAVERY, AND TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS specifically prohibits this. Also Florida has state-wide laws against Human Trafficking (as all US States now do) and has not granted any exemption to this for the Disney District or its residents. Of course it happens far too often all across the US, but not because of any legal exemption. Could a brothel operate within the District? What about an opium den, or a meth lab? Florida could grant exceptions to its anti-prostitution laws, as Nevada has done, but to the best of my understanding it has not done so. Opium and Meth are both illegal under Federal law. Florida could (but has not) grant exemptions to the state drug laws, but could not affect the federal laws. Would it be illegal for a visitor to bribe a Disney official to tolerate (or even facilitate) a hub for human trafficking? Yes. Again this is prohibited by Federal as well as state law. Bribes to law enforcement to overlook crime do happen, but such bribes are themselves illegal. If authorities in Gainesville suspected that members of Disney EMS were sexually exploiting female patients, could the District obstruct the investigation by destroying evidence and medical records, and refusing to provide Gainesville police access to the suspects? Not lawfully. Local officials and police can and do obstruct and hinder state and even federal investigations in some cases, but doing so is itself a crime, and Disney officials are not exempt from such. Whether they could exert political and/or economic influence to obstruct a state investigation is hard to say, but doing so would not be lawful. What's to stop a high-ranking Disney executive from murdering someone within the District and then wielding their position within the company, which appears tantamount to legal authority, to effect a cover-up? Powerful local officials, members of law enforcement, and politically and/or economically powerful private individuals have engaged in cover-ups of various crimes in the past, and no doubt will do o in the future. The powers granted to the Disney District might facilitate such coverups, but that would not make such cover-ups lawful. They would not be lawful, although the law might be less well-enforced than in some other places. In short Disney is powerful, and has been granted some unusual legal powers and authorities, making it in effect a local government. But it is still bound by the same laws that bind all local governments, aside from any specific exemptions, and all Federal laws still apply in full.
I can't comment on what the legal situation would be in your home country, but as a matter of U.S. law, the hypothetical scenario you've described is not illegal. First, because you aren't a U.S. citizen and because you aren't operating in the United States, the U.S. government probably has no jurisdiction over you, your website, or your conduct. Even if it did, the most relevant statute, 18 U.S. Code § 1017, would not apply. The statute prohibits the &quot;fraudulent or wrongful&quot; use of the FBI's seal. But &quot;fraudulent&quot; and &quot;wrongful&quot; generally refer only to conduct where one uses deception or other means to obtain money, property, etc. to which they have no lawful entitlement. United States v. Enmons, 410 U.S. 396, 399 (1973). Because you aren't using the seal to obtain anyone's property through deception, this use would not fall within the statute's proscriptions. Even if the government sought to prosecute you, you would have a valid First Amendment defense. The First Amendment protects the right to free speech, and it does not allow statements to be criminalized merely because they are false. United States v. Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. 2537 (2012). This outcome should be unsurprising to most U.S. observers. I think most people would agree that the U.S. obviously cannot prosecute a Hollywood producer for making a movie dramatizing the FBI's efforts to shut down the Pirate Bay, even if it displayed the FBI's seizure message on a monitor in the course of the movie, and even if it showed the seal being used on a completely fictional website. The hypothetical you're describing is not materially different. In both cases, the seal is being used to falsely create the impression -- for entertainment purposes -- that the FBI has shut down a website. Saying false things for entertainment purposes is not a crime in the United States.
First of all, cruise ships are not lawless zones. At all times, the law of their country of registration applies. In addition, if they are in sovereign waters, that country's law applies. Also, many countries impose their law on ships that depart from their ports until they dock in another country's port. And finally, international maritime law applies (IML). In many ways, ships are some of the most heavily legalised places on Earth. Actions can be brought in any court of competent jurisdiction and that court will decide which law to apply. For example, a UK ship en route from Sydney to Noumea is governed by IML, UK law and NSW/Australian law while in NSW/International waters and will also be governed by New Caledonian law when it enters New Caledonian waters. Second, cruise ships do have a brig where people can and will be confined. The normal practice when someone commits a crime (like boarding without paying) and or breaks their contract with the cruise company is that that person is confined to the brig or their cabin and put off the ship at the next port of call. If there was a crime involved, they would be handed over to local law enforcement for investigation, prosecution and possibly extradition. If not then they would just be left on the dock - they would need to find their own way home. Usually, the cruise company would hand them a bill for the cost of their confinement, food etc.; if they pursue this debt or not is a different matter. A person without valid travel documents may find themselves in trouble with local immigration as well. Finally, boarding a cruise ship at sea without the cooperation of the ship would be damn near impossible. Even small cruise ships have 10 or more decks with the places where the ship can be accessed 2 or more decks (say 6-8m) above the waterline. If the ship was stationary it might be possible to throw up a rope I guess but if it was cruising at 12 knots, forget about it.
Article 175 of the Criminal Code says: A person who distributes, sells or displays in public an obscene document, drawing or other objects shall be punished by imprisonment with work for not more than 2 years, a fine of not more than 2,500,000 yen or a petty fine. The same shall apply to a person who possesses the same for the purpose of sale. This has been interpreted to require pixelization, blurring, censorship bars, or other means of obscuring genitalia. See the 2013 guilty plea by publishers of Core Magazine for an example prosecution under art. 175 for insufficient censorship. The law apparently does not reach material that is produced and edited and sold outside of Japan (even if filmed in Japan). See e.g. the discussion of Realm (1976) in Kirsten Fischer, The Art of Censorship in Postwar Japan, p. 198-199: [the film] was not prosecutable because of Ōshima’s innovative production strategy ... He had imported the film stock from France, shot the film in Kyoto, and then exported the undeveloped film back to France, where he developed and edited it and finally distributed it internationally, including importing it back to Japan. A &quot;heavily cut form [was] eventually screened in Japan.&quot;
The powers given to law enforcement professionals will be detailed in the relevant law that establishes them. I would suspect that the decision to cordon off an area would fall within the purview of the officer on the scene; the idea that a police officer would need to seek permission before cordoning off a motor vehicle accident or chemical spill is unworkable. I would also suspect that other emergency personnel (e.g. ambulance and fire-fighters) would have similar powers. However, such cordoning off would be a temporary measure and if it was maintained for an unreasonable period it would be open to challenge through an administrative or judicial process. If the police decided that a feature was a permanent hazard then they could seek a court order on the owner of the property to provide some measure to adequately protect the public, by either removing the hazard or providing some permanent barrier, under whatever laws seemed most appropriate.
There will be a local rule regarding what police have to do with a person in custody. Here are the rules for Seattle. The main relevant rule is that they must take reasonable steps to ensure the safety of the detainee. They must use seat belts, unless the vehicle does not have seat belts in the detainee area. Additionally, they are not to respond to routine calls while transporting a detainee, but they may may respond to a threat to life safety. Typically, high speed response indicates a threat and not a noisy dog complaint. There is no obligation to refrain from responding, nor is there a requirement to release detainees. I don't think there is a clear and bright line: it comes down to what an officer would (in light of department instructions) judge to be reasonable. The officer may be wrong and the department may be wrong in what is legally "reasonable", and this could come out as a result of lawsuits and Dept. of Justice investigations. You can file a complaint with the Civil Rights division of the DoJ, see here.
Do flight attendants have an unlimited leeway of forcing the passengers to listen to their gibberish that are completely unrelated to their duties? Pretty much, I'd say. It may not be a good customer experience, but the flight attendant certainly isn't doing anything illegal. You don't have a legal right not to hear speeches that offend your IP sensibilities. I don't think it's legally any different than if they were showing an in-flight movie that you didn't like. If you try to forcibly stop him, you are likely to be found in violation of 49 USC 46504, which prohibits "assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or flight attendant of the aircraft, interferes with the performance of the duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the member or attendant to perform those duties". Even if making speeches about Mickey Mouse is not part of his duties, anything physical you did to try to stop him would likely tend to also lessen his ability to perform his actual duties. Violation of 49 USC 46504 is a felony and carries a prison term of up to 20 years. If you try to shout him down, you might be charged with disorderly conduct under state or local law, like this guy. You could probably push your call button to summon another flight attendant, and politely state that you object to the loquacious crew member's behavior, and could they please ask him to stop. Alternatively, you can put on your noise-cancelling headphones and turn up the volume on your music. Anything beyond that and you're in a bad legal position. Of course, you can certainly file a complaint with the airline after the fact. There's a fair chance you'll get an apology, maybe some extra air miles, and the flight attendant might be disciplined or fired. But that's an internal customer service or personnel matter; nothing to do with law.
Firstly, yours is not a valid argument. What is meant by "generally accessible" is public places like plazas, stretches of green by the road, parks, parking lots, etc. The definition is kind of a negative and could be more easily phrased as: "You may camp at A) designated camping areas or B) private places where you are entitled to camp". This means you either have to find a camping area where you pay a fee for a period of time, or you may camp on private grounds that either belong to you, or you have been given explicit permission to camp, say in a private garden or field. Of course this is practically impossible if you don't know anyone in there. But, the screenshot explicitly restricts this rule with the leading prase "Im Gemeindegebiet" which means if you leave the legal boundaries of Werfen, Salzburg county law applies (Which may or may not be similar). Disclaimer: While I don't have legal background, I can tell from personal experience that local governments are touchy on this and striking up camp somewhere where you are not allowed to will at least (if detected) require you to leave the premises immediately and the police may charge you with trespassing.