URGENT UPDATE: A high-stakes legal battle is unfolding as attorneys for biologist Brittney Brown confront state lawyers over her dismissal linked to a controversial social media post regarding the murder of conservative leader Charlie Kirk. This case raises critical questions about First Amendment rights and government accountability.
On September 15, 2025, just five days after Kirk’s assassination during a public event in Utah, Brown was terminated from her position with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). Her lawsuit alleges that the firing violated her First Amendment rights, a claim that has gained significant attention.
During a hearing on November 11, 2025, U.S. District Judge Mark Walker heard arguments regarding Brown’s request for a preliminary injunction to reinstate her and prevent further retaliation. The FWC maintains that Brown’s termination was necessary to avoid “foreseeable disruption” and protect the agency’s credibility.
Brown’s post, shared on her personal Instagram account, satirically responded to Kirk’s death, stating, “the whales are deeply saddened to learn of the shooting of Charlie Kirk, haha just kidding.” This remark sparked outrage, leading to “hundreds of complaints” and ultimately her firing, according to state attorney Taylor Greene.
“You don’t get to fire somebody just because the public is yapping at you,” Judge Walker remarked, emphasizing the need to consider the implications of public discourse on employment.
Brown’s attorney, Gary Edinger, argued that her repost was a legitimate expression of political opinion and should be protected free speech. He highlighted the importance of allowing diverse opinions, especially on pressing issues like gun violence, which remains a national concern.
Judge Walker acknowledged the complexities of the case, noting that while public employees do not have absolute job security, their rights to express personal opinions should not be stifled by fear of public backlash. He pointed out that Brown’s firing occurred shortly after a conservative group, Libs of TikTok, amplified the post, raising concerns about a “heckler’s veto” in public discourse.
As legal arguments continue, this case is emblematic of broader tensions between free speech and government interests. Brown’s firing is not an isolated incident; Edinger indicated that he has been contacted by other public employees facing similar repercussions for expressing dissenting views about Kirk.
The outcome of this case could set a significant precedent for public employees’ rights and the limits of government authority over personal expression. As the situation develops, all eyes are on Judge Walker’s decision, expected soon.
Stay tuned for updates on this pressing legal matter that could affect First Amendment protections across the nation.
