Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Behind the Aegis

(55,781 posts)
Wed Dec 3, 2025, 02:41 AM 4 hrs ago

Judge orders readmission of law student who posted 'Jews must be abolished'

Nov 25 (Reuters) - A federal judge has ordered the University of Florida to reinstate a law student it expelled for making controversial statements about race and religion, including a post on X that said “Jews must be abolished by any means necessary.”

Chief U.S. District Judge Allen Winsor in Tallahassee granted a preliminary injunction, opens new tab on Monday requiring plaintiff Preston Damsky be readmitted to the Gainesville law school for now, finding that the school had not shown his statements online and in academic papers were true threats of violence and that the expulsion likely violated his free speech rights under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment.

“The University, of course, has an interest in maintaining order, but it has no interest in violating the First Amendment to achieve that goal,” Winsor said.

Damsky’s attorney, Anthony Sabatini, on Tuesday called the ruling “a big win for the First Amendment.” He said his client had missed an entire semester of law school due to the dispute.

A university spokesperson declined to comment on Tuesday.

more...

5 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Judge orders readmission of law student who posted 'Jews must be abolished' (Original Post) Behind the Aegis 4 hrs ago OP
there are lots of places where hate speech is not tolerated stopdiggin 4 hrs ago #1
Any means necessary is a threat exboyfil 4 hrs ago #2
The ambiguity stems from the word "abolished" which is not clearly calling for violence AZJonnie 4 hrs ago #3
Oh it's very clear to me. RandySF 3 hrs ago #4
I'm not saying what he actually meant is unclear, only that it's *just* ambiguous enough that it allows AZJonnie 3 hrs ago #5

stopdiggin

(14,831 posts)
1. there are lots of places where hate speech is not tolerated
Wed Dec 3, 2025, 02:54 AM
4 hrs ago

If this was a private place of work - this ass-hat would not be getting his job back. The government however (with a public institution standing in its stead ... ) It's been long established that ugly speech does not contravene ...
And still - I think this ruling is probably erroneous. We'll see I guess,

AZJonnie

(2,475 posts)
3. The ambiguity stems from the word "abolished" which is not clearly calling for violence
Wed Dec 3, 2025, 03:18 AM
4 hrs ago

Abolishing typically means "casting aside", "kicking out", etc, and is not typically applied to "people", but rather to "practices". Distasteful and hateful as the sentence is, I think the court's decision is at least defensible insofar as it seems like protected speech. MHO, fwiw.

AZJonnie

(2,475 posts)
5. I'm not saying what he actually meant is unclear, only that it's *just* ambiguous enough that it allows
Wed Dec 3, 2025, 03:54 AM
3 hrs ago

for constitutional wiggle-room in a situation where the 1A might logically apply, such as this one.

It's almost like the dude specifically chose this word to have exactly this courtroom fight, if I'm in CT mode.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Judge orders readmission ...