Clay Teacher Who Dissed Charlie Kirk Sues State
Facing Sanctions, She Cites Constitutional Right To Express an Opinion on Facebook
The Clay Schools teacher who celebrated the death of MAGA firebrand Charlie Kirk cannot be punished because it would violate her First Amendment Constitutional rights, according to a federal lawsuit filed this week against the state education commissioner.
Kelly Brock-Sanchez, a teacher at the Ridgeview Elementary School, was part of a wave of teachers and other opponents of the Trump Administration who took to Facebook in the wake of Kirk’s September 10 assassination, expressing their happiness. Many were sanctioned, including Brock-Sanchez.
“This may not be the obituary we were all hoping to wake up to, but his is a close second for me,” Brock-Sanchez wrote, suggesting her first choice would have been Donald Trump himself.
The local district responded by putting Brock-Sanchez on administrative leave.
In a complaint against Brock-Sanchez, State Education Commissioner Anastasios Kamoutsas called her remarks “callous and unconscionable” and “grossly immoral,” continuing:
Respondents conduct caused parents to question respondent’s qualifications as an educator and ability to present unbiased lessons to their students. The fact that the murder took place on a school campus, in front of young people, serves to exacerbate the impact of respondent’s works on students and their parents as evidenced by the district’s receipt of over 500 complaints about respondent and her thoughtless words. The overwhelming response to respondent’s conduct necessitated increased security on school campus…
Kamoutsas recommended that the state Education Practices Commission sanction Brock-Sanchez in some way, including any combination of a written reprimand, probation for a period of time, restricting the scope of practice, a fine, suspending her certificate for up to five years or revoking her certificate for up to 10 years or permanently.
Brock-Sanchez’ attorney, Mark Herdman, said that the education commissioner should have known none of that would fly:
Plaintiff’s expression of hostility to Charlie Kirk, a prominent public figure, was Constitutionally protected core political speech, and any arguably innapprorite or controversial character of plaintiff’s social media post is irrelevant to whether it deals with a matter of public concern and is thus protected by the First Amendment.
Herdman is asking a federal judge to permanently enjoin the state from sanctioning his client and order that the state pay her damages and lawyer’s fees.
Celebrating the loss of human life is grossly abhorrent behavior, full stop.
That said, Mrs Brock-Sanchez is constitutionally entitled to her opinions, beliefs, and their free expression. If she were employed in the private sector, her employer would be entitled to fire her for sharing those opinions in a public setting as she did (in the state of Florida at least).
As far as I am aware, the same laws apply to public employees as well. Which to me means that her 1st amendment rights were not infringed. She was allowed to say whatever she wanted, her employer did not take kindly to her publicly shared opinion, and chose to part ways with her. As employers have the right to terminate employment without notice here.
Her rights are still in tact, and so are the States.
State Education Commissioner Anastasios Kamoutsas called her remarks “callous and unconscionable” and “grossly immoral,”
Sounds about right to me.