{"id":42426,"date":"2025-11-11T13:34:07","date_gmt":"2025-11-11T13:34:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-fl\/42426\/"},"modified":"2025-11-11T13:34:07","modified_gmt":"2025-11-11T13:34:07","slug":"judge-weighs-firing-over-kirk-post-tallahassee-reports","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-fl\/42426\/","title":{"rendered":"Judge Weighs Firing Over Kirk Post \u2013 Tallahassee Reports"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"fb-share-icon\"<\/a>
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\"Tweet\"
\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/a><\/p>\n

By Dara Kam, The News Service of Florida<\/p>\n

TALLAHASSEE \u2014 In a closely watched dispute about First Amendment rights, attorneys for a biologist who was fired because of a social media post after the murder of conservative leader Charlie Kirk squared off against lawyers for the state on Monday.<\/p>\n

Biologist Brittney Brown, who worked for the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission studying shorebirds and seabirds in the area of Tyndall Air Force Base in the Panhandle, alleges in the lawsuit that her firing on Sept. 15 \u2014 five days after Kirk was shot during an appearance at a Utah university \u2014 violated her First Amendment rights.<\/p>\n

Attorneys for Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Executive Director Roger Young and Melissa Tucker, a division director, said the agency fired Brown to \u201cprevent foreseeable disruption, reputational harm and loss of public trust. The agency did not police ideology; it protected credibility central to its mission.\u201d<\/p>\n

U.S. District Judge Mark Walker on Monday heard arguments in Brown\u2019s request for a preliminary injunction requiring the state agency to reinstate her and prohibit them from retaliating against her for the social media post.<\/p>\n

Brown was fired after she reposted on her personal Instagram account a post from an account called \u201c@whalefact.\u201d The post said, \u201cthe 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,\u201d according to the lawsuit.<\/p>\n

Taylor Greene, an attorney who represents the state agency, told the judge that Brown\u2019s employment was terminated because of \u201chundreds of complaints\u201d about the post. Allowing her to remain on the job would \u201cdisrupt operations and erode public trust\u201d in the agency, Greene, a Tallahassee-based lawyer with the Lawson Huck Gonzalez PLLC firm, argued.<\/p>\n

The agency\u2019s \u201cefficiency interests\u201d outweigh Brown\u2019s free speech rights, Greene said.<\/p>\n

But Walker asked Greene whether Brown\u2019s repost should be considered an example of an important debate about gun control, which is a matter of public concern.<\/p>\n

\u201cJust because something\u2019s inappropriate or controversial, how is it not covered by the First Amendment?\u201d Walker asked.<\/p>\n

Brown\u2019s termination was \u201cbased on internal policy,\u201d Greene answered.<\/p>\n

But Gary Edinger, who represents Brown, told Walker that Brown\u2019s social media reposting was protected private speech made on her own time from her personal account.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s a political statement on a matter that everyone in America is still talking about,\u201d Edinger said.<\/p>\n

Walker, however, questioned whether Edinger had met the requirements for a preliminary injunction. The judge said the burden was on Edinger to show that Brown\u2019s continued employment would not have had an adverse impact on the state agency.<\/p>\n

The judge pointed to court records showing the timeline of Brown\u2019s firing, which came a day after Libs of TikTok, a conservative social media account, shared a screenshot of Brown\u2019s repost and called for her termination.<\/p>\n

Despite \u201cdeeply disturbing facts\u201d surrounding the timeline, Walker suggested the \u201cundeveloped record\u201d in the case might not be strong enough to show that Brown\u2019s speech rights outweighed the state agency\u2019s interests in operating smoothly.<\/p>\n

\u201cYou don\u2019t get to fire somebody just because the public is yapping at you,\u201d although workers \u201cdon\u2019t have an absolute right\u201d to employment, Walker noted.<\/p>\n

The response to Brown\u2019s post was \u201cjust a blip,\u201d Edinger argued.<\/p>\n

\u201cThings going viral on the internet today, that happens every day,\u201d he said. \u201cYou can\u2019t invoke that bogeyman as a cover for content-based, viewpoint-based discrimination.\u201d<\/p>\n

Much of Monday\u2019s arguments centered on a legal concept known as a \u201checkler\u2019s veto.\u201d which occurs when government officials silence an employee because of fear of a hostile reaction from the public.<\/p>\n

Attorneys for the state agency argued that the concept did not apply in Brown\u2019s case.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe First Amendment does not shield public employees from the consequences of speech that undermines the effectiveness, credibility or public trust on which their agencies depend. \u2026 Even if the post had some political dimension, FWC\u2019s interest in maintaining credibility and neutrality far outweighs any minimal expressive value,\u201d the officials\u2019 attorneys wrote in a court filing last month.<\/p>\n

But in a brief filed Friday, Brown\u2019s lawyers argued that the disputed comments were \u201ccivic commentary on a matter of public concern.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cMr. Kirk\u2019s legacy continues to be hotly contested in the political realm, and Plaintiff\u2019s repost of the Whale Statement speaks directly to that legacy and the larger context of gun violence in the United States. Multiple bills have been submitted to the Florida Legislature for the upcoming 2026 session memorializing Charlie Kirk,\u201d the brief said.<\/p>\n

Walker did not rule immediately on Monday, but he said he intended to fast-track the case.<\/p>\n

Brown\u2019s firing is among a number of sanctions state and local agencies, universities and school boards are pursuing against Kirk\u2019s critics in the aftermath of his assassination.<\/p>\n

Speaking to reporters after Monday\u2019s hearing, Edinger, a prominent First Amendment attorney based in Gainesville, said he has been contacted by other government employees who were fired for posting negative comments about Kirk.<\/p>\n

\u201cFor one thing, it is an unprecedented response. I have no explanation for it,\u201d Edinger said, adding that it is \u201cextremely unusual for people to be punished for that.\u201d<\/p>\n

Edinger remained confident that Walker ultimately would rule in Brown\u2019s favor, even if he does not grant a preliminary injunction forcing her reinstatement.<\/p>\n

\u201cI think it\u2019s going to be an important statement saying that the government can only go so far and that we live in a free society and we have to tolerate a diversity of opinion, amongst our peers, our neighbors and other public employees,\u201d Edinger said.<\/p>\n

\"fb-share-icon\"<\/a>
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\"Tweet\"
\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/a>
\n\t\t\t\t