Sorry, but after reading all of the posts, I had to jump in and give my two cents…
Despite any personal feelings, Disneyland remains private property. However, what most people are not taking into consideration is Disneyland is granting right of way and a temporary license by allowing guests admission for a fee. In most cases, such as a concert, they may eject people who are violating the law. As your passage onto the resort property is a revocable license (your passport), Disneyland must refund your money if they ask you to leave and do not intend to provide the services for which you contracted under the temporary license (passport).
Guests who are violating clearly established rules and/or policy may be asked to leave, but should be offered a full refund. Although Disneyland may not always offer it, guests who are ejected for things such as giving a tour would be entitled to such and would probably prevail in a civil action to receive their admission price refunded. In the event that you violated the law (clearly this is not the case here) you would not be entitled to a refund.
Once you are asked to leave (with or without a refund) you are considered trespassed and you are unable to return for a period of time. The expiration of the license (passport expires that day) should allow your return the following day unless they state otherwise and give a separate time period. The Anaheim Police, along with other departments around the globe, like to throw around a bunch of B.S. in the hopes that people will get scared and not make a big fuss. Disney may not offer a refund, and even though you are entitled to one, you should exit the property and resolve your claim via the courts.
Despite what everyone here says, he has a right to sell his information (even if it is clearly wrong) when the transaction is conducted off of property. Once on property, Mr. Hill has every right to disseminate any information he chooses. He could not, and should not, sell tickets for a private tour on Disney property and then provide the tour following payment. The fact that he is selling information and not a good or product is what governs. The analogies of others in setting up shop in Wal-mart are invalid arguments as Mr. Hill is not selling Mickey Mouse Hats, but information.
I always base my legal arguments by looking at it from both sides. If Disney charged a fee, and then arbitrarily threw people out of the park for giving tours, making comments they did not like, smelling like rotten eggs or anything else they just come up with, then they are creating a fraud by charging for a service they had no intention of providing. By refunding the money, and revoking the temporary license, they can kick anyone out.
I understand why they would not want someone to conduct tours within Disneyland. However, the assertion from others that Mr. Hill has no first amendment claim because he is on private property is ridiculous. Disney will no doubt counter that they did not ask him to cease because of his comments, but because of his actions. An individuals first amendment rights exist even on private property as long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others! You clearly could not scream “fire” inside of Splash Mountain causing those riding it to climb out seeking safety. Disney certainly could not tell you that speaking to your friend about the lack of maintenance in the park is cause for ejection from the property. We have all stood in line and heard morons talking about the loop they are adding to Space Mountain (I even heard it from a cast member). They simply can not infringe upon your right to free speech.
My guess is that Mr. Hill was simply asked to stop and was not thrown out of the park. I am not a fan of Mr. Hill’s by any stretch of the imagination, but I think that Disneyland should also operate within the law and provide a refund if they ask him to leave.