Insensitive comments about an assassination are widely condemned, and for good reason. At the same time, the First Amendment protects speech even when it is offensive or unpopular; in fact, its protections matter most when the speech is disagreeable. Public school employees are government employees and can be held to professional standards, but they do not lose their constitutional rights simply because they work for the state.
Florida also has a very recent precedent on this point. In Thomas Caggiano v. Duval County School Board, a teacher engaged in off-duty online activity that the district considered inappropriate, but the court found that the discipline imposed violated the teacher’s First Amendment rights and reversed the repercussions.
Ultimately, outcomes depend heavily on the facts and on the teacher’s employment status and contract terms, especially whether the district is taking action mid-contract (where “just cause” and due process procedures often apply) versus simply declining to renew an annual contract. In addition, even where a district claims “just cause,” the First Amendment analysis still matters. Courts look at factors such as whether the speech was made off duty, on personal devices, without using school resources, and whether the post caused actual disruption to school operations or the teacher’s ability to do the job.
In this situation, the State Education Commissioner reportedly characterized the comments as “grossly immoral.” But the legal question is not one official’s personal moral judgment; it’s whether the conduct meets the legal standard for “immorality,” typically defined as conduct that brings the individual or profession into public disgrace or disrespect and impairs service in the community.
If the teachers had made the statements on school grounds or while acting in an official capacity, the district’s case would be stronger. But if they posted as private citizens on private accounts, off duty, the district enters a much grayer area when trying to justify termination for cause.
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.
Insensitive comments about an assassination are widely condemned, and for good reason. At the same time, the First Amendment protects speech even when it is offensive or unpopular; in fact, its protections matter most when the speech is disagreeable. Public school employees are government employees and can be held to professional standards, but they do not lose their constitutional rights simply because they work for the state.
Florida also has a very recent precedent on this point. In Thomas Caggiano v. Duval County School Board, a teacher engaged in off-duty online activity that the district considered inappropriate, but the court found that the discipline imposed violated the teacher’s First Amendment rights and reversed the repercussions.
Ultimately, outcomes depend heavily on the facts and on the teacher’s employment status and contract terms, especially whether the district is taking action mid-contract (where “just cause” and due process procedures often apply) versus simply declining to renew an annual contract. In addition, even where a district claims “just cause,” the First Amendment analysis still matters. Courts look at factors such as whether the speech was made off duty, on personal devices, without using school resources, and whether the post caused actual disruption to school operations or the teacher’s ability to do the job.
In this situation, the State Education Commissioner reportedly characterized the comments as “grossly immoral.” But the legal question is not one official’s personal moral judgment; it’s whether the conduct meets the legal standard for “immorality,” typically defined as conduct that brings the individual or profession into public disgrace or disrespect and impairs service in the community.
If the teachers had made the statements on school grounds or while acting in an official capacity, the district’s case would be stronger. But if they posted as private citizens on private accounts, off duty, the district enters a much grayer area when trying to justify termination for cause.
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.