Biologist’s Life Implodes After Charlie Kirk Comment, Leading To Lawsuit And National Debate

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

Smiling biologist wearing green hoodie and beanie holding a red-billed bird outdoors, related to biologist’s life and lawsuit debate.

Image credits: GoFundMe

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.

Man in a gray suit and white shirt looking ahead during a public event related to biologist’s life lawsuit and national debate.

Image credits: Gage Skidmore

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. 

Screenshot of a social media post highlighting a controversial Charlie Kirk comment affecting a biologist’s life.

Image credits: britt.goes.wild

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.

Comment by Louis Barbarite calling for lawsuits amid biologist’s life controversy following Charlie Kirk comment debate.

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.

Screenshot of a social media comment saying Wow, being honest is now illegal related to biologist’s life imploding debate.

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…

Comment by Reid Dree questioning freedom of speech related to biologist’s life and national debate context.

“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

Man speaking into microphone at outdoor event with police and crowd in background, related to biologist lawsuit debate.

Image credits: Gage Skidmore

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.

Tweet from MyFWC addressing a troubling social media post about Charlie Kirk, sparking a national debate and lawsuit.

Image credits: MyFWC

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.

Comment by Rona Klein on social media discussing biologist’s life imploding after controversial Charlie Kirk comment.

“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.”

Comment by Shane Ray Johnson on social media discussing freedom of speech and employer consequences in a heated online exchange.

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

Biologist holding a small turtle near face outdoors, wearing a cap and blue reflective sunglasses resting on the cap.

Image credits: britt.goes.wild

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.

Wildlife biologist facing online doxxing and public firing after controversy, sparking lawsuit and national debate.

Image credits: GoFundMe

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

Comment from Patrick Morris criticizing behavior, reflecting biologist’s life impact after Charlie Kirk comment debate and lawsuit.

Screenshot of a social media comment criticizing competence at FWC amid biologist’s life controversy and national debate.

Tammy Stratton Leaman explains U.S. First Amendment limits on speech and social consequences in a text comment bubble.

Screenshot of a social media comment by Cecilia Jimenez mentioning the Find Out phase with a laughing emoji.

Screenshot of a social media comment discussing free speech consequences relating to a biologist’s life controversy.

Comment by Jerry Landi on social media about free speech consequences amid biologist’s life legal debate.

Comment from Grant Thurston on social media discussing the biologist’s life and related national debate situation.

Comment by Cynthia Carnes on social media discussing accountability and a biologist’s life after a public controversy.

Comment by Molon Labé Leonidas on social media, discussing consequences related to biologist’s life and national debate.

Comment by Cindy Parillo Rodriguez on social media stating Consequence culture related to biologist's life and national debate.

Comment by Sea Scape on social media discussing biologist’s life implosion after Charlie Kirk statement.

Comment by Andy Hallinan on social media, featuring a quote about consequences, related to biologist’s life and lawsuit debate.

Commenter Michele Ann Lacy on social media discussing privacy and employer representation in a serious online debate.

Comment by Barbara Stubbs expressing strong disapproval in an online discussion about a biologist’s life controversy.

Comment on social media by Dane Kaas opposing violence and calling for job loss amid biologist’s life controversy.

Poll Question

Total votes ·

Thanks! Check out the results:

Total votes ·

Newsletter

Subscribe to Access
Exclusive Polls

Subscribe

By entering your email and clicking Subscribe, you're agreeing to let us send you customized marketing messages about us and our advertising partners. You are also agreeing to our Privacy Policy.

Thank you! You've successfully subscribed to newsletters!

Anyone can write on Bored Panda. Start writing!

Follow Bored Panda on Google News!

Follow us on Flipboard.com/@boredpanda!