Judge Reviews Biologist’s First Amendment Case Following Firing

A legal battle has emerged in Tallahassee over the firing of biologist Brittney Brown, who claims her termination from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) violates her First Amendment rights. The case centers on a social media post Brown made following the murder of conservative figure Charlie Kirk in September 2023. U.S. District Judge Mark Walker heard arguments on Monday regarding Brown’s request for a preliminary injunction to reinstate her and prevent further retaliation from the state agency.

Brown, who conducted research on shorebirds and seabirds at Tyndall Air Force Base, was dismissed on September 15, 2023, just five days after Kirk was shot during an event at a university in Utah. Her lawsuit contends that the FWC’s actions infringe upon her rights to free speech.

Arguments Presented in Court

During the hearing, Brown’s attorneys argued that her dismissal was a violation of protected speech made on her personal social media account. After Kirk’s assassination, Brown reposted a message from the account “@whalefact,” which expressed indifference towards Kirk’s death in a controversial manner. The statement read, “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,” as cited in the lawsuit.

Attorneys for the FWC, including Taylor Greene, contended that Brown was terminated due to the backlash generated by her post, which led to “hundreds of complaints.” Greene emphasized that the agency acted to prevent disruption and to maintain public trust, asserting that their interests in operational credibility outweighed Brown’s right to free expression. Greene stated, “The agency did not police ideology; it protected credibility central to its mission.”

Judge Walker challenged this perspective, suggesting that Brown’s repost could be viewed as part of a necessary public discourse on gun control. He posed a critical question to Greene: “Just because something’s inappropriate or controversial, how is it not covered by the First Amendment?”

Legal Implications and Public Concerns

Brown’s attorney, Gary Edinger, argued that the biologist’s actions were a form of political commentary on a highly relevant issue, emphasizing the ongoing national conversation surrounding gun violence. Edinger pointed out that many are still discussing Kirk’s legacy in the political landscape, particularly as related legislation is expected to surface in the upcoming Florida legislative session.

Despite the compelling arguments, the judge indicated that Brown’s legal team must demonstrate that her continued employment would not adversely affect the FWC. Walker noted the significance of the timeline surrounding her firing, which occurred shortly after a conservative social media account, Libs of TikTok, called for her termination.

While acknowledging the “deeply disturbing facts” in this case, Walker expressed concerns that the evidence presented may not sufficiently support Brown’s claim that her free speech rights surpassed the agency’s operational needs. He remarked, “You don’t get to fire somebody just because the public is yapping at you,” highlighting the balance between employee rights and agency integrity.

Edinger maintained that the backlash against Brown’s post represented a fleeting online reaction rather than a substantive justification for her firing. “You can’t invoke that bogeyman as a cover for content-based, viewpoint-based discrimination,” he argued.

Legal experts in attendance noted that this case touches on the concept of a “heckler’s veto,” where public officials may silence employees out of fear of negative public response. The FWC’s attorneys contended that such a concept does not apply here, insisting that Brown’s termination was a necessary step to uphold the agency’s credibility.

In a recent filing, Brown’s legal team characterized her comments as “civic commentary on a matter of public concern,” arguing that the public has a right to engage in discussions surrounding contentious political issues.

While Judge Walker did not issue an immediate ruling, he indicated his intention to expedite the case, recognizing its implications in a broader context of free speech for public employees. After the hearing, Edinger noted that other government employees have reached out to him regarding similar dismissals for expressing negative opinions about Kirk. He described the response to Brown’s termination as “unprecedented” and indicative of a troubling trend in public discourse.

Edinger expressed optimism about the outcome, suggesting that a ruling in favor of Brown would reinforce the principle that government can only restrict speech to a certain extent and must tolerate a diversity of opinion within its ranks.