Disney parks have secretly made the airspace surrounding "The Happiest Place on Earth" a federally regulated no-fly zone. Disney World and Disneyland are protected by a portion of a 300-page spending bill allowing anyone operating aircraft over the area be prosecuted or jailed.

Many no-fly zones were added for security purposes after 9/11, but many have remained in effect long after any seeming threat level has dissipated. Many see this as a clever way for Disney to keep aerial advertisers from cluttering customers' experience in the parks.

The two Disney zones in Anaheim, California, and Orlando, Florida, work the same way as areas restricted during presidential travel and large sporting events. Backers of Disney's protection said that the large crowds drawn to the parks make them an attraction that should receive special attention.

"We believe the airspace restrictions over large gathering places like sports stadiums and our theme parks continue to make sense for enhancing public safety," an unnamed Disney spokeswoman said to Fox News in an email.

However, not everyone agrees that Disney deserves this kind of special treatment. Critics argue that the three-mile radius of the no-fly zones over each park are only in place to deter planes displaying advertising banners to fly over Disney parks. They said this no-fly zone would do little in the event of an actual attack.

In 2003, an aerial advertising company and conservative Christian organization sued Disney over the no-fly zone. The group wanted to be allowed to fly protest banners against an upcoming gay festival in the area.

A judge denied the request that the Family Policy Network's rights to object to "Gay Days" were infringed upon by Disney's legal protection. The Virginia-based organization was represented by Stephen Crampton, who argued that the no-fly zones prevented competitors from advertising, but the potential terrorist threat was being used as a cover.

"We're not advertising; we're trying to reach a specific target audience with a very specific, noncommercial message," Crampton said at the time in court documents. "But Disney and Disney alone has managed to achieve a total ban, effectively, on such speech."