Jim Hill got kicked out of Disney Land

[MPLsDad]

If disney wanted a better park experience they wouldnt bother with a small group like hill's but would control the large brazilian tour groups which cause nothing but trouble as they run thru the parks in a uncontrollable manner.

Like Smokey, I second that emotion! Don't just limit it to Jim Hill! Kick every large tour group out!!!! They gotta go!

 

[rwodonnell]

Like Smokey, I second that emotion! Don't just limit it to Jim Hill! Kick every large tour group out!!!!

If that happens, it will have been worth the sacrifice Jim Hill made! Thanks Jim!

 

[dsanner106]

I tend to agree, I have been stuck in tour groups before, both foreign and domestic and have heard the guides give opinions and tell anecdotes Disney would not like, I see no difference between those groups and his. If they are going to kick him out, kick them all out. I think in order to do it, they will have to prove disruption though, as they are open to the public and have guidelines in place for remaining on the property.

 

[what]

Actually they don't have to prove anything. It is private property regardless if they permit access to it. Not to mention they don't even have to refund any money. I agree they should shut them all down if they are a problem. I can't believe I have been going to Disney properties for at least 25 years and have never had such a problem. Of course I will be at WDW in May and I have just jinxed myself.

 

[rwodonnell]

Actually they don't have to prove anything. It is private property regardless if they permit access to it. Not to mention they don't even have to refund any money. I agree they should shut them all down if they are a problem. I can't believe I have been going to Disney properties for at least 25 years and have never had such a problem. Of course I will be at WDW in May and I have just jinxed myself.

We usually have run into them in the summer, though the last time we were there in April, I think I saw a couple. But I think the summer months tend to be the big season where you can see several really large groups in one day.

 

[GaryAdams]

I'm also far from a Jim Hill "fan". I don't even read his stuff very often.

But I'm with Greg on this. It's pretty clear its the content that led to his removal. That doesn't mean that I think the upper echelons at Team Disney are having daily meetings on how to counter Jim Hill. But somebody, and maybe its just a mid-level manager, got tired of it and singled him out.

I have to agree with matt on this.

just for fun i googled "Disneyland tours" not until the 3rd page does jim hill disney tours come up,and that comes up on another site, Mousetrips.com.
http://www.mouseketrips.com/content/view/155/144/

Yes his name does come up before that,but it is just because of him getting kicked out.Not linking to his site about the tours.

This is just a case of some mid-level suit getting a chance to get back at him for some other article that may have taken a shot at their department.Not for a min do i think the upper suits take the time to read him or even this website.But i will bet big money mid-level management does.
The bad part is,this does nothing but get jim hills name out there more,and give him another chance to take shots at disney.
Myself i did read his site back a year ago during the shareholders meeting time,but overall its just 1 mans opinion of disney,and how they feel about it.

Can you ever get inside info from him? Maybe,but its not like Eisners secretary is leaking inside info to jim.

I would like to see if down the road this has an effect on other non-disney sponsored tours.
Until then,i will bet that jim hill plays this right (IE,the victim)and uses it to futher get his name and website out.
In some ways i find it funny,he was given a golden egg by disney to premote himself.
Just think, if it ends up that he was singled out,he will have alot of lawyers biting at the bit to bring a lawsuit.
This whole thing reminds me of the daycare wall paintings thing.

http://www.snopes.com/disney/wdco/daycare.htm

Some mid-level guy trying to kiss some butt and get ahead.

 

[what]

For them to have singled him out they would have had to plant these people who complained. That is not even close to probable considering they have every right to kick him out at any time without any reason. There would be absolutely no case even if they singled him out. They can choose whomever they want to allow or deny tours.

As far as the murals. That was interesting. I don't quite follow your logic in a comparison though. They would be in a no win situation. They don't want to set precedence in allowing some entity to use their characters without permission. Let's say they did, you would have people saying it is merely a publicity stunt and so on.

Anyway, the idea that he is gonna go to court based upong getting kicked out of the park for something that he did which is illegal is a pipedream. Kind of like a loan shark going to court thinking he could get his loan money back. Not gonna happen it's called usury. That is why they just break your legs. So don't really see him getting into a court based upon his performing of a illegal act resulting in his exit from the park. Not saying somebody won't try it. Unless he gets the ACLU I don't see him getting lawyered up enough to take them on. It would be a waste unless a lawyer was trying to make a name for himself. However it really isn't a discrimination case.

 

[DancingBear]

This whole thing reminds me of the daycare wall paintings thing.

There's really no comparison here. Copyright owners need to actively protect their copyrights, or they can lose the rights. These "cease and desist" letters go out all of the time.

 

[GaryAdams]

There's really no comparison here. Copyright owners need to actively protect their copyrights, or they can lose the rights. These "cease and desist" letters go out all of the time.

My point is, disney wouldnt even have known about the painting unless someone told them about it.
( IE maybe a former employee of the daycare,maybe a parent who was mad at the daycare,or maybe some employee of disney used that daycare for their children)
In both cases, the paintings and jim hill someone complained and after disney did some thing about it,they were and are going to be made the big bad evil company picking on the little guy.
Lets just hope they never decide to go after all the people here on the DIS who have disney pics in their avatars.
Oh wait what about those people who have a disney tattoo? remove them with a grinder?

For them to have singled him out they would have had to plant these people who complained. That is not even close to probable considering they have every right to kick him out at any time without any reason. There would be absolutely no case even if they singled him out. They can choose whomever they want to allow or deny tours.

Im sure 99% of the employees in the park that day didnt know he was giving a tour,he would be lucky if even 5% of them have even seen his website.
My point is,by them kicking him out all they (Disney) did was give jim hill and his website more press.
People are removed from the park every day,you just never hear about them.


I go back to my first post,i would bet that this is just a case of some mid-level manager having the complaint come across his or hers desk,and they thought
"wow heres a chance for me to look good by striking down a evil man who attacks the great and wise Disney. Heres my chance to make brownie points"

In the end i find the whole thing funny,heres some smuck who can say "not once but twice,disney has kicked me out of or denied me entrance too them."

Yea just know that in the sue happy world we live in today, some lawyer is trying to figure out if they can take this to court and get some money out of it.

 

[DancingBear]

Lets just hope they never decide to go after all the people here on the DIS who have disney pics in their avatars.
Oh wait what about those people who have a disney tattoo? remove them with a grinder?

The avatars and the tattoos aren't being used for commercial purposes.

 

[WDSearcher]

WD....


Are you sure he's a stockholder??? I thought I read something he wrote that said he was not!????

I've read a few times where he's made comments about how this or that decision or attraction wasn't doing his stock any good, but I suppose he could be just generalizing. Or perhaps he sold them.

 

[WDSearcher]

AND....just wondering, why haven't you commented on the 'NEWS of the day' Found here?......CLICK

Nah ... it was too easy. The best April Fool's Day articles are the ones that you read and you're not sure about. This one? Too obvious.

 

[WDSearcher]

By there action in this case and the annual meeting it shows the current disney regime will go to great lengths to squash different viewpoints.

But, considering none of Disney actions actually DID squash any different viewpoints, it would appear that maybe the quieting of people like Jim Hill was not their intent. Disney knew that by pulling Jim from the park, they were going to get slammed in Jim's column and that Jim would likely get a lot more web hits and business because of it. They knew that by pulling his press credentials, they would get slammed in Jim's column and that Jim would likely get a lot more web hits and business because of it. They probably got a lot more of those different viewpoints out there because of what they denied Jim Hill than they would have had they admitted him in the first place.

Obviously they have a reason other than squashing different viewpoints.

 

[Bayshore Bandit]

Enlighten me as to why what JH was doing is considered
illegal?

 

[rwodonnell]

The avatars and the tattoos aren't being used for commercial purposes.

The avatars used here are no less commercial in nature than the wall paintings at a day care. The wall paintings were simply decoration in a business where they probably figured "hey, the kids will like Disney". Here on this commercial web site, the avatars are hosted by the DIS. Perhaps they have permission, but it seems pretty much the same to me.

 

[crusader]

Enlighten me as to why what JH was doing is considered illegal?

Looks to be misrepresentation based on the story here: http://www.jimhillmedia.com/mb/articles/showarticle.php?ID=1363

 

[Cricket2]

<--retracted-->

 

[rwodonnell]

So let's see here Jimbo...2:30 + 20 minutes = 2:50. Where did the other hour and 10 minutes go Jim?

I'll file this under the ever thickening folder of "what Jim made up today".

I'm not following you. Wasn't the second reference where he says they stopped him actually a different day? Maybe I am reading it wrong.

 

[wtpclc]

Yes, after the 3 women finished Jim's tour, they complained. The next tour was the one that was stopped by security.

He does seem to be enjoying that attention, though!

 

[Cricket2]

Yup, Saturday and Sunday. I'll retract.