Activist’s Facebook Post Not Considered Doxing in Legal Ruling Over Government Employee

Activist Charlie Kirk's social media activities have led to a significant legal ruling regarding the protection of free speech against claims of doxing. The case involves Paul Bromm, a part-time Deputy Coroner for Lewis County, who was fired after posting memes and comments on Facebook that appeared to mock the shooting of conservative activist Charlie Kirk in September 2025. Bromm subsequently sued his employer, Lewis County, along with other defendants, arguing that one of them, Commissioner Sean Swope, had violated a doxing statute by publicly identifying him as an employee of the county and sharing sensitive information.

The lawsuit alleged that Commissioner Swope's actions constituted doxing under Washington state law (RCW 4.24.792), which prohibits the unauthorized publication of personal identifying information with the intent or knowledge that such information could be used to harm the individual. However, Judge Benjamin Settle ruled in favor of Swope, determining that his Facebook posts were protected under the First Amendment right to free speech.

In his opinion, Judge Settle noted that the doxing statute includes an exemption for "providing personal identifying information in connection with an exercise of the right of freedom of speech or of the press." This provision was crucial in dismissing Bromm's claims against Swope. The court agreed that Swope’s criticism of Bromm and his sharing of Bromm's employer details were legitimate exercises of free speech, even though Bromm had removed such information from his own profile.

The case highlights the complexities involved when government employees engage in controversial social media activities and face repercussions for their posts. It also underscores the delicate balance between protecting individuals' privacy rights and upholding the broader principle of freedom of expression. Commissioner Swope's actions were deemed to fall under protected speech, as they were part of a public discourse on issues that touched upon matters of public concern.

Legal experts have noted that this ruling sets an important precedent for how courts will interpret doxing statutes in relation to free speech protections. The decision suggests that while the statute aims to prevent harmful disclosures of personal information, it must not unduly restrict legitimate commentary and criticism by individuals like Commissioner Swope. This case is likely to influence future legal challenges involving similar issues.

The ruling also has implications for employers who may face difficult decisions when employees engage in controversial speech online. Bromm's termination raises questions about the extent to which public sector organizations can discipline their staff based on off-duty social media activities, especially when those activities are protected under the First Amendment. As this case demonstrates, such actions could potentially lead to costly legal battles and set back efforts to curb harmful practices like doxing.

In conclusion, Judge Settle's decision in Bromm v. Lewis County emphasizes the importance of free speech protections even in contexts where sensitive information is involved. The ruling reflects a nuanced approach to balancing individual privacy rights with the broader societal value of open public discourse, particularly when it comes to matters that are deemed to be of significant public interest.