Biologist Contests Firing Linked to Social Media Post in Court

In a significant legal case involving First Amendment rights, biologist Brittney Brown is challenging her termination from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). Brown was dismissed on September 15, 2023, just five days after the murder of conservative figure Charlie Kirk. Her lawsuit claims that the firing violated her right to free speech, stemming from a social media post she made.

The dispute centers around a repost on Brown’s personal Instagram account, which included a statement from an account named “@whalefact.” The post remarked on Kirk’s death, saying, “the whales are deeply saddened to learn of the shooting of Charlie Kirk, haha just kidding, they care exactly as much as Charlie Kirk cared about children being shot in their classrooms, which is to say, not at all.”

During a court hearing on Monday, U.S. District Judge Mark Walker listened to arguments regarding Brown’s request for a preliminary injunction that would require her reinstatement. Attorneys for the FWC, including Roger Young, the executive director, argued that Brown’s firing was necessary to prevent disruption and maintain public trust in the agency. They cited “hundreds of complaints” regarding her post, claiming that allowing her to remain employed would harm the agency’s reputation.

Brown’s attorney, Gary Edinger, contended that her actions constituted private speech made on her own time and were protected under the First Amendment. He emphasized that the post was a political commentary on gun violence, a significant issue in American discourse.

Judge Walker probed the state’s rationale, questioning whether Brown’s repost contributed to a broader public debate on gun control. He noted that while the FWC’s concerns about public trust are valid, the principle of free speech must also be considered. Walker remarked, “You don’t get to fire somebody just because the public is yapping at you,” while asserting that employees do not have an absolute right to their positions.

The timeline of Brown’s dismissal raised eyebrows, particularly as her firing followed closely after a conservative social media account, Libs of TikTok, shared a screenshot of her post and called for her termination. This led to discussions surrounding the concept of a “heckler’s veto,” where public officials may suppress speech out of fear of backlash. The state’s attorneys maintained that the concept did not apply in this situation, asserting that the effectiveness of the FWC was at stake.

Brown’s legal team argued that her repost was an expression of civic commentary on a matter of public concern. They highlighted that Kirk’s legacy continues to spark debate in the political arena, especially as multiple bills related to him are expected to be submitted to the Florida Legislature for the 2026 session.

Judge Walker did not issue an immediate ruling but indicated his intention to expedite the proceedings, given the case’s implications for free speech within public employment. Speaking to reporters after the hearing, Edinger noted that Brown’s case is part of a broader trend where government employees face repercussions for their views on Kirk. He expressed confidence that Walker’s eventual ruling would uphold the principle that diverse opinions must be tolerated in a free society.

The outcome of this case may set a precedent for how public employees navigate their speech rights in the current political climate, making it a pivotal moment in the ongoing discourse about free expression in the workplace.