FLORIDA AGENCY POLICY RESTRICTS EMPLOYEE SPEECH ONLINE

• Florida's wildlife agency has a new social media policy that experts say raises free speech concerns.
• The policy forbids employees from making negative comments about the agency on their personal accounts.
• It was released after the agency settled a lawsuit with a biologist fired over a social media post.

Florida’s wildlife agency now has a social media policy that, among other things, prohibits its workers from commenting negatively on their employer, which experts say raises free speech concerns.

The 5-month-old policy was released after the start of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission's First Amendment dispute with one of its employees. She was fired because of her Instagram post joking about the death of conservative influencer and activist Charlie Kirk,

The commission's "Social Media Use and Regulation" policy is dated Dec. 19, 2025. It regulates an employee's personal social media account by suggesting disciplinary action against employees who post negatively about the agency. It also prohibits social media comments that could disparage or express biases against race, sex or religion.

Officials released the new policy after a federal judge said fired FWC biologist Brittney Brown’s online speech was protected under the First Amendment.

Brown was fired in September after she reposted a joke about whales reacting to Kirk’s assassination: "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."

If found to violate the policy, commission employees could face disciplinary action, up to losing their job. But it "raises a lot of constitutional red flags," one expert said.

“It threatens employees with discipline for using their personal social media accounts to criticize FWC or engage in any conduct considered ‘unbecoming,’ ” said Aaron Terr, director of public advocacy at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.

“That’s an extraordinarily broad restriction on speech.”

Brown's lawsuit lasted about eight months, but lawyers decided to settle after U.S. District Judge Mark Walker penalized FWC attorneys and Brown's former supervisor for exaggerating testimony over how many complaints the agency received about Brown, and for doubling down on not correcting the record.

The state agreed to pay Brown $485,000 for back pay, attorney fees and damages. Comment is pending from an FWC spokesperson.

The challenge to the agency came at a time when scores of employees — scientists, professors, teachers, journalists — faced disciplinary action or got fired for critical posts about Kirk.

The prominent political figure often is credited for engaging young conservative voters through his Turning Point USA organization. (In October, Gov. Ron DeSantis announced that Florida was partnering with TPUSA to create more state chapters, although it's still not clear what this partnership involves.)

In Florida, Brown's lawsuit was the one of the first legal tests to how far a state agency could go in punishing speech against Kirk, particularly in a red state that's home to high-ranking Republicans, including Republican National Committee chair Joe Gruters and President Donald Trump.

But the First Amendment argument hasn’t gone in employers’ favor nationally, as several have already agreed to settlements: a former university administrator in Indiana got $225,000, a Tennessee theater professor obtained $500,000 and an Iowa public defender got $125,000.

The reason? The First Amendment is meant to protect political expression and speech, including on social media.

In multiple references, the FWC policy cited U.S. Supreme Court cases to back up a provision, but experts said some of these references were misleading.

For instance, FWC makes negative comments about the agency punishable, despite the high court long recognizing public employees as "valuable sources of information about what’s happening inside government."

What's considered "negative" matters: "As written, FWC's policy would even expose employees to punishment for speaking up about misconduct or corruption," Terr said.

One section also says employees are "advised that their speech on social media and related activity may reflect upon their employment with the agency," and it cites another case.

"I think that's a bit of a stretch," said Kevin Goldberg, a First Amendment expert with the Freedom Forum. "There needs to be some kind of authorization, and there needs to be clear intent to be speaking on behalf of the government."

It also says employees can't use social media to ridicule, mock or disparage race, sex or religion, but that type of restriction on speech is not immediately permissible under the First Amendment, said Gary Edinger, a First Amendment attorney.

He represented the fired FWC biologist in her lawsuit. He noted that racist or misogynistic speech could lead to agency disruption, which then could validate an agency's disciplinary action.

"As an initial matter ALL of that content is presumptively protected by the First Amendment and NONE of it falls within the commonly accepted exceptions to the First Amendment," Edinger said in an email. "But, the important thing is that it depends on the facts."

The policy could also affect whistleblowers, those who have inside information and expose a problem inside a government agency.

The policy says employees can't post or disseminate information they have access to while working at the agency, including unpublished information about site-specific projects or initiatives. They also can't summarize internal reports or forward employee emails.

But despite this policy, it can't trump the First Amendment, said Clay Calvert, a nonresident senior fellow of the American Enterprise Institute. He said the policy had lots of vague terminology, and that ultimately it'll be up to a court to handle issues that arise from FWC employees being fired or disciplined under this policy.

"This policy will likely have a chilling effect and lead to self-censorship of some speech that in fact is protected by the First Amendment," Calvert said. "This is like a preemptive strike designed to deter and chill the speech of public employees from speaking out."

This reporting content is supported by a partnership with Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners. USA Today Network-Florida First Amendment reporter Stephany Matat is based in Tallahassee, Fla. She can be reached at SMatat@usatodayco.com. On X: @stephanymatat.