Free Speech Advocates Urge Court to Reinstate Employee Fired Over Charlie Kirk Social Media Post

TALLAHASSEE, FL (February 23, 2026) — The ACLU of Florida and the law firm of Benjamin, Aaronson, Edinger & Patanzo, PA filed a motion for summary judgment in Brown v. Young, urging the court to immediately reinstate former Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) employee Brittney Brown after discovery revealed the state agency falsely claimed operational disruption to justify her termination in violation of the First Amendment.

Brown, a skilled biologist who worked for FWC for more than seven years, temporarily posted a social media meme on her private Instagram account following the death of political figure Charlie Kirk. The post, reposted from a parody account, referenced Kirk’s documented views and conveyed satirical political commentary – speech protected by the First Amendment and unrelated to her job duties.

After a right-wing social media account stalked, copied, and amplified Brown’s private post along with information about her position with the FWC and demanded her immediate termination, the FWC terminated Brown within 24 hours.

The lawsuit, filed in September 2025, alleges that Brown’s termination was unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. The evidentiary record developed during discovery confirms that conclusion. The record shows that Brown’s firing was based on her expressed political views and was used as a warning to other FWC employees. Two additional employees were later terminated for similar posts on private accounts.

During litigation, state officials claimed Brown’s speech disrupted agency operations and asserted under oath that FWC received “hundreds” of complaints requiring urgent action. Discovery revealed those claims were false. Fewer than 50 documented complaints were received, agency leadership did not review them before ordering termination, and operations continued without material disruption.

The motion seeks declaratory relief, immediate reinstatement, compensatory damages, and punitive damages.

Brittney Brown, Plaintiff, shared the following statement:

“For over seven years, I showed up to work for Florida and protected our imperiled species. I loved my job; I believed I made a difference and I was proud to work alongside hundreds of dedicated biologists across the state. I never could have imagined that expressing a personal opinion on my own time – separate and unrelated to my work – would end my career overnight. Public employees do not surrender their constitutional rights when they accept a government job. No one should have to choose between their livelihood and their freedom of speech.”

Carrie McNamara, staff attorney of the ACLU of Florida, stated:

“Brittney Brown spent the last several years protecting Bay County’s critical shorebird and seabird habitat, and this is the thanks FWC gives her. She is a respected scientist doing essential conservation work. Instead of honoring her public service, agency officials acted with extraordinary speed to terminate her over a private political post. They then attempted to justify that decision by claiming ‘hundreds’ of complaints and operational chaos. Discovery dismantled that narrative. There was no chaos – only retaliation against protected speech. The First Amendment does not allow the government to manufacture disruption in order to justify punishing speech it dislikes.”

Gary S. Edinger of Benjamin, Aaronson, Edinger & Patanzo, P.A., co-counsel for Brittney Brown, followed:

“This is not a complicated case, and comes down to a straightforward constitutional principle. When a public employee speaks as a private citizen on a matter of public concern, the government cannot retaliate unless it can demonstrate real, material disruption to its operations. Ms. Brown spoke as a private citizen on her own time, and the government fired her because it disagreed with what she said. The Constitution does not permit that. The facts are clear, the law is clear, and the court should order her reinstatement.”

Bacardi Jackson, Executive Director of the ACLU of Florida, concluded with:

“FWC’s actions make one thing clear: some state officials are willing to protect speech only when they agree with the message. Political pressure from Tallahassee has reached so deeply into state government that agency leaders feel compelled to enforce a preferred ideology. That kind of state-sanctioned suppression creates a culture of fear, corrodes public trust, and has no place in a free society. The First Amendment doesn’t exist to protect comfortable or popular speech; it exists to protect dissent and speech that those in power would rather not hear. We honor Brittney Brown’s courage, and will continue fighting to ensure that public employment is never used as a tool to silence constitutionally protected expression.”

The motion for summary judgment can be viewed here.