Administrative Law Judge Recommends Reversing Suspension for Charlie-Kirk-Related Post

On September 15, 2025, the School Board issued a letter notifying Ms. Thornton, a teacher at South Sumter Middle School, that the Superintendent was imposing a five-day suspension, without pay, for violation of School Board Policy 3139 and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081—Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida. The letter specifically alleged that Respondent shared a social media post “normalizing a lack of empathy” regarding the then recent assassination of Charlie Kirk. The letter further alleged that Respondent disparaged the superintendent and criticized Turning Point USA (“TPUSA”) for an alleged lack of inclusivity….

Two days after the shooting, on September 12, 2025, Respondent re-posted a video to her Facebook page that did not celebrate his death, directly mention the shooting, or even state his name. Rather, the TikTok video, narrated by Jeff Guenther, LPC, communicated the message that people were entitled to their feelings—whatever those feelings might be, regarding the unfortunate event. The caption on the video states “It’s about giving you permission to notice whatever you honestly feel or.”

In the video, Mr. Guenther states the following:

It makes sense if you don’t feel a deep well of empathy for someone who made a career out of refusing to show it for others.

I want to normalize that, because sometimes when a public figure dies, especially in a tragic way, people rush to say you have to be compassionate right now, don’t speak ill of the dead. But if that person spent their life dismissing other people’s pain—mocking it, minimizing it, even actively contributing to it—it makes sense that your empathy tank might run dry … that doesn’t mean you’re celebrating it, it doesn’t mean you’re cold hearted, it just means your compassion has limits and those limits are often shaped by how much compassion someone showed in their lifetime.

There’s actually something psychologically healthy about noticing that boundary. You’re not obligated to manufacture sorrow for someone who never extended any to you, your community, or people you care about. You can hold both—I don’t wish this on anyone, and I don’t feel sad about it either. That’s not cruelty, that’s honesty, and it feels really weird and uncomfortable to hold both of those in your body at the same time.

This isn’t about telling you not to be compassionate, it’s about giving you permission to notice whatever you honestly feel or don’t feel and trust that it’s valid.

By no stretch of the imagination can the above statement be construed as endorsing any form of violence, or celebrating the assassination of anyone. Nor does the video advocate, encourage, or “normalize” a lack of empathy for the loss of human life. At hearing, Respondent accurately characterized the intent of the video and her reason for sharing it:

A. I’ll—like I—like I’m saying—I’ll repeat it. I don’t feel like this video is promoting a lack of empathy. It’s just allowing or just acknowledging that people—that they can feel the way they want to feel. Period.

Q. Without any remorse, guilt, or feeling that they’ve violated a rule, correct?

A. Just—just because someone doesn’t feel empathy—empathy for someone doesn’t mean they are vocal about it. It’s just a feeling.

Q. Okay. But sharing video is more than a feeling, correct? It’s actually an assertion to a degree. I mean, how could it—isn’t that correct?

A. Well, sharing a video—a video, to me, is just sharing of information.

Q. Okay. And a particular viewpoint, correct?

A. A viewpoint that I may or may not agree with or just—I feel like people just need to be aware of.

Q. Okay.

A. A lot of people were impacted in different ways from this. I—I personally feel empathy. Personally myself. I am also a widow. My husband also died by gunshot. So I do feel empathy in the situation. But I can’t—I don’t agree that empathy has to be forced on someone.

Respondent also made a comment, on someone else’s post, that criticized the political organization TPUSA for lacking inclusivity. Superintendent Brown personally founded a chapter of TPUSA at the Villages Charter School and took Respondent’s criticism to be “pretty inflammatory.”

Superintendent Brown testified that he received “four or five” inquiries concerning Respondent’s social media posts, in the nature of “Hey, did you see Ms. Thornton’s post.” He acknowledged that none of the inquiries were a “direct complaint.” …

It is unclear if the staff members at Respondent’s school, who complained about her posts to the Superintendent, saw it themselves or were reporting what they were told about it by other people….

Respondent is charged with violating rule 6A-10.081, specifically:

(1) Florida educators shall be guided by the following ethical principles:

(a) The educator values the worth and dignity of every person, the pursuit of truth, devotion to excellence, acquisition of knowledge, and the nurture of democratic citizenship. Essential to the achievement of these standards are the freedom to learn and to teach and the guarantee of equal opportunity for all.

(b) The educator’s primary professional concern will always be for the student and for the development of the student’s potential. The educator will therefore strive for professional growth and will seek to exercise the best professional judgment and integrity.

(c) Aware of the importance of maintaining the respect and confidence of one’s colleagues, of students, of parents, and of other members of the community, the educator strives to achieve and sustain the highest degree of ethical conduct….

Regarding rule 6A-10.081, the video posted by Respondent does not devalue the worth and dignity of any person, or Charlie Kirk in particular. Rather, the video commentator engaged in a nuanced discussion about the complex feelings some people, especially those who strongly disagree with his political views, may or may not have after his tragic passing. The video did not celebrate his murder, praise the violent perpetrator or otherwise engage in an inappropriate discussion about his death.

Moreover, the video was only shared with Respondent’s friends on Facebook (most assuredly people who are familiar with her political beliefs) and not with the public in general. The video was posted on her own time and not during school hours. She did not share the video with her students, and there is no evidence that the posting of the video caused a disruption to the learning environment at the school. Nor was there any evidence that her colleagues or parents lost confidence in her ability to teach students.

Superintendent Brown’s testimony was also unclear as to what he meant by his assertion that the video “normalized a lack of empathy” for Charlie Kirk, especially given his lack of recall regarding the contents of the video or its message. In sum, there is no evidence that Respondent failed to maintain the “highest degree of ethical conduct” or that she committed “misconduct in office” pursuant to rule 6A-5.056.

The same analysis applies to her posting of a terse comment criticizing TPUSA for a lack of “inclusivity.” Whether her criticism has merit or not is a matter of political debate and not at all inappropriate for a teacher to discuss on her Facebook page with her friends. Moreover, there was no evidence that her comment regarding TPUSA caused a student or his or her family to feel unwelcome or unwilling to participate in the learning environment, or otherwise constitutes “misconduct in office.” …

Respondent was exercising her protected First Amendment right to free speech, and in so doing, did not undermine the trust of the students and families that they serve. Because Respondent’s posts involved a matter of public concern, and the School Board entirely failed to show any risk or actual disruption of its operations due to the posts, the Pickering-Connick balance tips entirely in Respondent’s favor.

{At most, Superintendent Brown had to deal with a handful of inquiries about the posting, but nothing that indicated Respondent’s effectiveness as a teacher was impaired. For example, there was no evidence that parents requested to have their students pulled from Respondent’s classroom or that her colleagues refused to work with her. Thus, there was no evidence of any substantial impact upon the school district from her posts that would warrant discipline of any sort.} [Respondent’s] suspension is insupportable, and her free speech rights were violated….

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Sumter County School Board impose no discipline on Respondent, and compensate her for her back pay during the period of suspension….