Attorneys for the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission say an employee's firing was not a First Amendment violation.
Published on October 31, 2025 at 10:47 am
Free local news and info, in your inbox at 6 a.m. M-F. Sign up for the Jacksonville Today newsletter.
Disputing allegations that they violated First Amendment rights, Florida wildlife officials Thursday argued that a federal judge should reject a request to reinstate a biologist who was fired because of a social-media post after the murder of conservative leader Charlie Kirk.
Attorneys for Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Executive Director Roger Young and Melissa Tucker, a division director, said the agency fired Brittney Brown on Sept. 15 to “prevent foreseeable disruption, reputational harm and loss of public trust. The agency did not police ideology; it protected credibility central to its mission.”
Jacksonville Today thanks our sponsors. Become one.
“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. … Even if the post had some political dimension, FWC’s (the agency’s) interest in maintaining credibility and neutrality far outweighs any minimal expressive value,” the officials’ attorneys wrote.
Brown, who worked for the commission studying shorebirds and seabirds in the area of Tyndall Air Force Base in the Panhandle, filed a lawsuit Sept. 30 alleging that her firing violated First Amendment rights.
The lawsuit said Brown was fired after reposting on her personal Instagram account a post from an account called “@whalefact.”
Jacksonville Today thanks our sponsors. Become one.
The post said, “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,” according to the lawsuit.
Brown’s attorneys on Oct. 3 filed a motion for a preliminary injunction that asked U.S. District Judge Mark Walker to reinstate her to her job and to prevent retaliation by the agency. In addition to alleging First Amendment violations, the motion said Brown’s post did not disrupt Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission operations.
“Plaintiff made her social media post on her personal phone while she was on vacation,” the motion said. “That political post had nothing to do with plaintiff’s job responsibilities. After all, she is a wildlife biologist, not a public information officer. In addition, plaintiff did not identify herself as an FWC employee in her post; the post itself had nothing to do with FWC or its operations; and her Instagram profile made no reference to FWC as her employer or otherwise.”
The document filed Thursday by attorneys for Young and Tucker was a response to the motion for a preliminary injunction. Walker has scheduled a Nov. 10 hearing on the motion.
Reaction to the Kirk post
Kirk, who led the conservative group Turning Point USA, was assassinated Sept. 10 during an appearance at Utah Valley University. After Brown made the repost on Sept. 14, Libs of TikTok, a conservative social media account, shared a screenshot and called for her firing, according to the lawsuit. She was fired the next day.
Brown worked for the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission for about seven years, according to the lawsuit. A copy of her Sept. 15 termination letter included in the lawsuit indicated she had an “Other Personal Services” position, a classification that does not include some of the protections that other employees receive.
