University of Florida Faces Free Speech Lawsuit After Expelling Law Studen

 University of Florida Expels Law Student Amid Free Speech Battle

A major free speech clash is unfolding in Florida. The University of Florida (UF) expelled a law student over controversial social media posts, and now the case is before a federal judge. On one side: a student who says his First Amendment rights were violated. On the other: the university, which argues it acted to protect campus safety and community integrity.

University of Florida Faces Free Speech Lawsuit 

Below is a breakdown of the controversy, the arguments, and what this dispute could mean for free speech on campuses.

Who Is Involved & What Happened

The Student: Preston Damsky

Preston Damsky, formerly enrolled at UF’s law school, became central to the dispute after making public posts online containing antisemitic content. He also wrote a seminar paper with rhetoric that critics describe as extremist or white supremacist in tone.

UF responded by barring

him from campus and then expelling him. Damsky now claims the university overstepped by punishing off-campus speech that, he argues, is protected under the First Amendment.

The University’s Actions

Earlier in the year, UF issued a trespass warning preventing Damsky from entering campus for three years, citing concerns over his statements and their potential threat to campus safety. Later, UF Dean of Students Chris Summerlin formally expelled him, and this decision was upheld by a university appeal panel.

Damsky then filed suit, seeking reinstatement and claiming the university violated his constitutional rights. The case has moved into federal court, where a judge recently heard oral arguments from both sides.

The Legal Arguments

Damsky’s Position: “Protected Speech”

Damsky, represented by attorney Anthony Sabatini, contends that:

• His social media posts were made off campus, not during class hours or at UF property.

• His statements, though extreme, were not literal threats. They were meant as provocations or expressions, not actionable violence.

• As a student at a public university, he argues he retains First Amendment protections and should not be punished for viewpoint expression.

• The university’s punishment amounts to viewpoint discrimination — removing someone because the institution disagreed with his ideas.

UF’s Defense: Campus Safety & Disruption

UF, through representatives like Christopher Bartolomucci, counters that:

• The posts, though off campus, directly impacted UF’s learning environment when Damsky engaged with faculty and students.

• The university has the right to protect faculty, staff, and students from actions perceived as threats.

• Some statements targeted broad segments of the UF community, including its Jewish population, creating fear and disruption.

• Because of the context — including a response from a UF professor and student protests — the university claims the posts crossed from abstract ideas into real threats.

What Happened in Court

In a recent hearing, Judge Allen Winsor listened to arguments from both sides. Damsky’s lawyer argued that the student’s speech was non-literal and not directed at a particular individual. UF responded by emphasizing the impact on campus safety and showing that even off-campus speech can be regulated when it significantly disrupts university life.

The judge did not issue a final decision that day. He indicated that he would make a narrow ruling soon to decide whether Damsky should be allowed back on campus while the broader lawsuit continues.

Key Events & Background Context

Campus Removal & Appeal

• In April, UF issued the trespass order, barring Damsky from campus for three years.

• In August, the university formally moved to expel him.

• Damsky appealed this decision internally, but the appeal was denied.

• In October, the expulsion took effect. At that point, he was no longer permitted to attend classes, even remotely, under the university’s decision.

The Controversial Posts & Seminar Work

Damsky’s statements began drawing scrutiny after he posted messages suggesting Jewish people should be “abolished by any means necessary.” He also identified himself as “anti-Semite” in posts. The rhetoric drew wide concern when a UF law professor publicly asked whether Damsky would use violence against her and her family in response to one post. In his response, Damsky linked that question to broader views he expressed about violence and identity.

In addition to social media posts, Damsky’s seminar paper to a UF law professor argued that constitutional language like “We the People” applied only to white Americans. Despite backlash from students and faculty, he received a book award for academic achievement in that course, though the seminar’s content sparked debate over limits of academic freedom.

What’s at Stake

Free Speech vs Campus Safety

At the heart of this case is the tension between free speech and the university’s responsibility to maintain a safe, non-hostile environment. Public institutions are bound by the First Amendment, meaning they cannot arbitrarily punish students for expression. But those protections are not unlimited — speech that amounts to true threats or substantial disruption may be regulated.

Boundaries of Discipline

Another central question: how far can a university go in punishing off-campus speech? If a university begins disciplining students for all statements made anywhere, the risk is censorship and chilling free expression. But if it lacks ability to act when speech spills into campus harm, it may lose authority to maintain order.

Precedents & Academic Freedom

This case could set important precedent for how universities manage extremist content, online harassment, and controversial academic work. It raises issues of academic freedom — can a university penalize students for truly unpopular or radical ideas, even when controversial?

Potential Outcomes & Implications

Here are possible ways the dispute may resolve:

1. Reinstatement Pending Full Case
   The judge might allow Damsky back on campus while the full case is decided, especially if he believes the expulsion was too extreme or lacked sufficient legal justification.

2. Upholding Expulsion
   The court could find the university acted within its rights given the disruption and perceived threats, leading to Damsky remaining expelled.

3. Broader Ruling on Free Speech Limits
   Beyond Damsky, the court’s ruling may shape how much authority public universities have over student speech, both on and off campus.

4. Appeals & Higher Court Decisions
   Whatever the outcome, either side may appeal to higher courts, especially since First Amendment and campus speech issues often reach appellate or Supreme Court levels.

Reactions & Perspectives

• Some students and civil liberties advocates argue that universities must protect even the most divisive speech, unless it clearly incites violence or panic.

• Others say institutions have a duty to intervene when speech targets vulnerable groups or incites fear, especially within academic settings.

• Faculty and free speech scholars caution against overly broad punishment policies that could suppress debate and stifle academic exploration.

In UF’s case, officials cite the severity of the statements, the reactions on campus, and fear among students and faculty. Supporters of Damsky argue that his intent and context matter — that his posts, while extreme, did not amount to credible threats as defined legally.

Why This Case Is Important

It puts a spotlight on how public universities balance student speech and campus order.

The decision may become a reference point for future cases across the U.S. about social media, extremism, and discipline.

It highlights how online speech today can have real consequences in academic settings.

Read more from this blog