I'm not in favor of subsidies or special treatment for private companies anymore than I'm in favor of taxes in general. Really, for the "Tax the rich and the corporations!" crowd, the tax breaks given to Disney by the state of Florida should have been cause for anger to begin with.
Now, again, the motivation is off here in a certain way. It seems clear that the motivation for the change is Disney's political positions. I don't like that motivation. The fact that companies have been rewarded for toeing leftist lines for years doesn't exonerate this action.
Still, I think that one could argue that Disney's shift into politics coupled with the special treatment from the state could be seen as subsidized speech.
If all Florida is doing is making Disney pay taxes just like everybody else when the company used to be given special treatment, I don't see this as a violation of First Amendment principles. I could be wrong. I just don't see it. We do force tax exempt organizations to give up certain speech rights as it is. In fact, I'd wager that most people who are angry at Ron DeSantis over this move are the same people who want to tax churches.
The government can neither restrict nor compel speech. Likewise, the government shouldn't be able to financially harm speakers any more than the state should be able to financially subsidize certain speech.
Either way, just like the people who are crying about Twitter being taken over by Musk have been saying for years that Twitter is a private company that can do what it wants when the company was on their side, the people who claim to hate corporate subsidies and tax breaks are angry that those same subsidies and tax breaks are being taken away by a company that they like.
These last few weeks have forced a lot of wolves to shed their sheep's clothing.