Landmark Free Speech Ruling Sets Precedent: Impact on Ongoing Case - Raven v Smithsonian Director

WASHINGTON - April 20, 2024 - PRLog -- In a groundbreaking ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Lindke v Freed has established a pivotal two-prong test for delineating the boundaries between government official speech and personal expression on social media platforms. This landmark ruling has profound implications for ongoing free speech litigation, including the case of Julian Raven v Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery Director Kim Sajet.

The case of Lindke v Freed (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-611_ap6c.pdf) addressed the critical issue of free speech rights in the digital age, particularly in the context of social media platforms. The Supreme Court's ruling established a rigorous two-prong test, requiring courts to meticulously evaluate whether a government official's social media activity constitutes state action and whether it purports to exercise governmental authority.

This ruling has far-reaching consequences, particularly for Julian Raven's long-standing battle for free speech accountability within the Smithsonian Institution. Raven has been a tireless advocate for constitutional accountability, challenging the actions of government-paid officials at the Smithsonian who have evaded scrutiny for their actions.

Raven's ongoing case against Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery Director Kim Sajet, for blocking Raven on 'X', formerly Twitter, before Federal Judge Christopher Cooper (Case No. cv-22-2809, https://casetext.com/case/raven-v-sajet-1), had been suspended pending the Supreme Court's ruling on free speech rights in social media. With the establishment of the two-prong test in Lindke v Freed, Raven's case takes on renewed significance as it navigates through the legal landscape.

Notably, Raven is no stranger to legal battles for free speech. He made history as the first individual to bring his cases all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court (https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-6548/121881/20191112122654653_20191112-122112-95748849-00003630.pdf) challenging the actions of government-paid officials. While his previous appeal was ultimately rejected, Raven remains undeterred in his pursuit of justice.

The convergence of Raven's ongoing litigation with the recent Supreme Court ruling presents a critical juncture in the fight for free speech rights. Will Judge Cooper's courtroom finally provide the platform for Raven's vindication, or will it necessitate another round of appeals through the federal court system, potentially leading back to the U.S. Supreme Court?

As the legal saga unfolds, Raven stands as a beacon for free speech advocates, challenging the boundaries of government accountability and ensuring that constitutional rights are upheld in the digital age.