Two-Sport Athlete: Hockey Player turned Phallic Graffiti Artist Gets His Day in Court

There’s antisemitism, and then there’s Nazism. At least that’s what one court recently concluded.

In August 2023, StopAntiSemitism.org, a “grassroots watchdog organization dedicated to exposing groups and individuals who engage in antisemitic behaviors,” accused University of Michigan student John Druskinis of spray painting swastikas onto his school’s Jewish Resource Center (JRC, for short).  

That wasn’t quite accurate. Rather, Druskinis decorated the sidewalk outside the JRC with an…ejaculating penis and the homophobic slur “f*g.”

Druskinis sued StopAntiSemitism to regain (some of) his lost honor. In December 2024, Eastern Michigan District Court Judge Susan DeClercq allowed the lawsuit to go forward, finding that a jury would likely have to determine whether Druskini’s art was so offensive, it might as well have been a swastika.

Whodunnit?

On August 23rd, Ann Arbor PD (AAPD) tweeted that it was “actively investigating two incidents of hate motivated graffiti found near the University of Michigan campus.”  

Druskinis was subsequently identified and apologized to the JRC, which elected not to pursue discipline (though he was kicked off the hockey team). On September 30, StopAntiSemitism tweeted:

University of Michigan hockey has given Johnny Druskinis the boot after he was caught on camera painting swastikas onto the Jewish Resource Center during welcome week.

Thank you @umichhockey for creating actual consequences for antisemitism activism on your campus. #twitterhockey

StomAntiSemitism also published an article titled University Michigan Athlete Suspended for Antisemitic Graffiti at Jewish Resource Center on their website stating that Druskinis was indefinitely suspended from the hockey team for “graffitiing antisemitic… messages on the sidewalk in front of the campus’ Jewish Resource Center.” It’s website hosted an article titled “Antisemitic Incident Map” on its website that included a red marker on Michigan with the headline Michigan hockey player kicked off team after alleged antisemitic behavior.

 What is Objectively Racist?

Courts do not deem every factual inaccuracy defamatory if the “gist” or “sting” is true. Close enough is acceptable under the substantial truth doctrine. The First Amendment also protects opinions, however blistering or ill-conceived. As long as the speaker shows their work, i.e. opine based on disclosed facts, readers are empowered to reach their own conclusions. While courts separate objective fact from subjective opinion all the time, some judges have found the line to be blurry when it comes to accusations of bigotry.

In McClanahan v. Anti-Defamation League, a former political candidate sued the ADL for calling him as a white supremacist who sought to implement an extremist agenda. Magistrate Judge Jill Morris of the Western  District of Missouri granted the ADL’s motion to dismiss, observing that “determining whether a candidate has openly expressed extreme views” or has “aspirations to impact mainstream society” involved “subjective judgments that lack verifiable truth.” She also held that the ADL’s claim that McLanahan was a “member” of the KKK to be substantially true despite his membership only being “honorary.” You say tomato, yadda yadda.

However, the ADL was less fortunate in Sabal v. Anti-Defamation League. There, a right-wing influencer sued the organization for accusing him of holding “antisemitic beliefs,” including the “trope of blood libel,” and identifying him as an “extremist.” Judge Reed O’Connor of the Northern District of Texas found the reference to blood libel to be substantially true, in light of a post shared by Sabal describing “how Jews are killing non-Jewish children in synagogue basements to use their blood for Passover rituals” and then “selling their flesh to make sausage and hamburger.” Yet labeling Sabal an “extremist” in a glossary that highlighted hate crime statistics and violent plots was a bridge too far. The Court held that a jury could find it to be a “factual assertion that Sabal’s events are associated with such criminal activity.” Huh?

In Armenta v. Deadspin, Delaware Judge Sean Lugg rejected a motion to dismiss a lawsuit accusing a sports commentary website of defaming a 9-year-old and his family. Deadspin called them racist after the boy wore face paint and a headdress to an NFL game. The boy’s face was only painted half black, but the article only included a picture of that side of the boy’s face, calling it “black face.” The Court found that the screenshot created a “false factual impression” despite the allegation of racism being “arguably couched as an opinion.”

Three different courts, three different outcomes.

How Antisemitic is Homophobic Graffiti?

Evaluating the fact/opinion dichotomy, Judge DeClercq found that labelling the incident antisemitic was non-actionable opinion. Defacing sidewalks adjacent to a Jewish Center can subjectively be deemed antisemitic - or not - by a reasonable person. While the JRC released a statement saying the incident was “offensive and disrespectful but did not include any overt antisemitic symbols (like swastikas),” the ADL was free to disagree. 

But when it came to the swastika claim, the Court found the substantial truth defense unpersuasive. Implicit in the Court’s reasoning is that homophobia and antisemitism are distinct forms of bigotry, and that each exists on a spectrum. Sure, spray painting “f*g” on a sidewalk is stupid and offensive. But spray painting a swastika onto a Jewish Resource Center is… another, much worse story.

The lesson here: be careful calling people bigots and be certain of the facts before you imply that someone is a Nazi.