Law student's post that 'Jews must be abolished' wasn't true threat justifying expulsion, judge rules
A law student who argued in a seminar paper that federal courts “have the power to arrest the dispossession of white America” and posted on X, formerly Twitter, that “Jews must be abolished” was expressing opinions that are likely protected under the First Amendment, a federal judge ruled last week.
U.S. District Judge Allen Winsor of the Northern District of Florida said the suspended law student, Preston Damsky, must be reinstated to normal standing at the University of Florida Levin College of Law.
Damsky’s comments weren’t true threats when considered in context, Winsor said in the Nov. 24 opinion.
“The university has not met its burden to show that it could punish Damsky for any of his speech consistent with the First Amendment,” Winsor wrote.
In one of the seminar papers written in his 2L fall semester, Damsky wrote: “We should feel no shame about feeling attached to those with whom we share a common racial origin. The founding generations of Americans were also no strangers to fighting, killing and dying on behalf of their rights and sovereignty. The hour is late, but we are not yet so outnumbered and so neutered that we cannot seize back what is rightfully ours. This land, America, our due inheritance, is worth the struggle.”
In another seminar paper Damsky said: “The Supreme Court and inferior federal courts have the power to arrest the dispossession of white America. … If the people are not granted relief from the government—which includes the judiciary—then, if they are to survive as masters in the land of their ancestors, they must exercise ‘their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow’ the government.”
Damsk wrote the post on X the next semester, on March 21. It read: “My position on Jews is simple: Whatever Harvard professor Noel Ignatiev meant by his call to ‘abolish the white race by any means necessary’ is what I think must be done with Jews. Jews must be abolished by any means necessary.”
Damsky “seems to enjoy pushing boundaries and provoking others,” Winsor observed. “He achieved that and more with two seminar papers and one social media exchange that ultimately became the basis for his expulsion.”
A law student who saw the X post reported it to the interim dean. A Jewish law professor replied to Damsky’s post April 1, writing, “Are you saying you would murder me and my family? Is that your position?”
Damsky replied: “Did Ignatiev want whites murdered? If so, were his words as objectionable as mine? If Ignatiev sought genocide, then surely a genocide of all whites would be an even greater outrage than a genocide of all Jews, given the far greater number of whites.”
The law professor responded: “I notice you didn’t say no, but instead resorted to whataboutism. Yes, his words are despicable, but you implicitly admit yours are, too.”
Some students were so upset by Damsky’s X post that they came to the interim dean’s office crying and expressing concern that Damsky would physically harm them. The professor who responded to Damsky wasn’t afraid until she heard from students who knew him better. After that, she and her husband slept with a baseball bat by their bed.
The school stepped up its security and suspended Damsky on April 2, saying his X posts were threatening and disruptive and his seminar papers contained “violent rhetoric.”
Winsor, an appointee of President Donald Trump during his first term, said Damsky’s writings, when read in context, don’t convey a real possibility of violence.
“Even if ostensibly referring to violence,” Winsor wrote, “a hyperbolic and coarse expression of political opinion does not necessarily constitute a true threat.”
Even Damsky’s post that “Jews must be abolished by any means necessary,” offers no indication that Damsky will act on his position, Winsor wrote. “He is stating a view—even if a hateful and offensive one.”
“To be sure, those reading Damsky’s words may be justifiably fearful. Some may assume that anyone uttering such commentary is more likely to act violently than someone who does not,” Winsor wrote. “But that is not the test. The test is whether Damsky’s posts constituted a ‘serious expression’ that he meant ‘to commit an act of unlawful violence.’”
Publications covering Winsor’s opinion include the Volokh Conspiracy, Law.com, Reuters and Law360.
The university has appealed the decision, Law360 reports.
Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.
