A Florida biologist has filed legal action against her former employer after a satirical Instagram repost about conservative activist Charlie Kirk’s a**assination allegedly led to her untimely termination.
Biologist Brittney Brown claimed that she was on vacation and sharing from a private account when she joked about Kirk’s slaying. Her post was later screenshot and circulated online, ultimately resulting in an ultimatum that she resign or be terminated less than 24 hours after her employer learned of it.
Brown’s post ignited massive controversy online
According to the lawsuit, which was filed against the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, everything began when Brown shared a post about Kirk’s public slaying on Instagram.
Brown reposted a post from the parody account @awhalefact, which the filing described as “a parody/satirical account that pretends to speak on behalf of a whale,” to joke about the political activist’s passing.
Her post 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 s**t in their classrooms, which is to say, not at all.”
Five days later, the social media account Libs of TikTok surfaced Brown’s repost and paired it with a screenshot of her LinkedIn profile, urging that she be removed from her position at the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), according to the Daily Mail.
Brown had worked at the FWC for roughly seven years. “Britt works for the Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC).
“She allegedly posted this disgusting message mocking Charlie’s a**assination. Your tax dollars pay her salary. She should be fired ASAP,” Libs of TikTok wrote on X.
The FWC responded quickly, writing that it “did not condone nor tolerate this type of hateful sentiment” and that a “swift and immediate resolution regarding this individual’s employment” was underway.
Brown stated in her filing that she was called into the office and told she must either resign or be terminated. When she asked to speak to an attorney, the lawsuit alleged that the agency’s Regional Director visited her at home and delivered a termination letter.
Soon after, Libs of TikTok posted that Brown had been fired.
FWC released a public statement, saying, “This weekend, we were made aware of a deeply troubling incident involving an FWC employee who shared a social media post that made light of the a**assination of Mr Kirk…
“We have a zero-tolerance policy towards the promotion of violence and hate, and we will not stand for such behavior.”
Brown claimed in her lawsuit that her social media post was not related to her government job
Brown’s lawsuit argued that the FWC’s decision violated her First Amendment rights because she was not working, not using state resources, and not representing the agency in any capacity when she reposted the controversial social media post.
“(Brown’s) political statement does not condone Mr Kirk’s k**ling; nor does it call for further violence. The post did not threaten anyone but merely stated a political opinion about a political figure,” her filing read.
Her attorney, Gary Edinger, emphasized that she was using her personal phone while out of state on vacation. “It’s a political statement on a matter that everyone in America is still talking about. You can’t invoke that bogeyman as a cover for content-based, viewpoint-based discrimination,” he argued.
Lawyers representing the state, however, defended her termination, stating that a public agency must be able to take action when an employee’s speech threatens credibility or neutrality.
“The 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… FWC’s interest in maintaining credibility and neutrality far outweighs any minimal expressive value,” the FWC’s lawyers noted.
During a hearing on a motion to get Brown temporarily reinstated, Judge Mark Walker offered pointed remarks that captured the complexity of the case. “You don’t get to fire somebody just because the public is yapping at you,” he said, while also noting, “Workers don’t have an absolute right to employment.”
Her lawyers later admitted that an immediate reinstatement was a long s**t. “We were taking a chance on a preliminary injunction… Fortunately, we are on an extremely fast-tracked discovery and summary judgment schedule,” Brown’s legal team stated.
The online community has debated whether Brown’s punishment fits her offense
As news of the lawsuit spread, public reaction was sharply divided, with some arguing that Brown had crossed a clear line and others insisting the punishment was disproportionate for a single satirical joke.
“Government job on taxpayers’ dime… of course she can be fired! Don’t like it, don’t go on the public’s teat,” one commenter wrote.
Others focused on the emotional weight of the event itself. One wrote, “How hard is it, as a public employee, not to celebrate the political a**assination of an innocent man… She couldn’t even do that. I would not want my tax dollar supporting this person.”
Others believed the firing went too far. One person wrote, “She should have been reprimanded first. Did she have a good work record? I truly do not think termination was necessary… We are all different in thoughts and even in our daily life.”
Some saw the situation as a clash between legality and morality. One blunt comment read, “You weren’t fired because free speech failed. You were fired for revealing to your employer that you’re a horrible person.”
Netizens shared their thoughts on Brown’s termination and lawsuit on social media
