Landmark Free Speech Ruling Sets Precedent: Impact on Ongoing Julian Raven Artist Case Against Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery Director
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 first major test of the ruling in 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, before Federal Judge Christopher Cooper (Case No. cv-22-2809, https://casetext.com/case/raven-v-sajet-1), had been suspended since the summer of 2023, 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 the first major test for the SCOTUS ruling as it navigates through the free-speech legal landscape.
Raven is staring down three Department of Justice attorneys, Matthew M. Graves, Brian P. Hudak and Dimitar P. Georgiev in this most recent round of battling briefs. You can read both the DOJ’s continued efforts to dismiss Raven and Raven’s forceful rebuttal of the Smithsonian’s dubious disclaimer defense, below.
Notably, Raven is no stranger to legal battles for free speech. He made history as the first individual to bring his fire speech case against the Smithsonian Institutio 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, while Chief Justice John Roberts had to recuse himself from the decision since he is also the Chancellor of the Smithsonian Institution, Raven remains undeterred in his pursuit of justice.
Raven’s nearly eight-year ongoing battle has been extensively documented in the press. Here is the coverage of the current controversy in the Washingtonian magazine. https://www.washingtonian.com/2022/09/28/former-pro-trump-artist-sues-national-portrait-gallery-director-for-blocking-him-on-twitter/ Raven also wrote the full account of his first round of litigation in his book Odious and Cerberus – An American Imigrant’s Odyssey and his Free-Speech Legal War Against Smithsonian Corruption
The convergence of Raven’s ongoing litigation with the recent Supreme Court ruling presents a critical juncture as the first major test of the ruling, 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.
DOWNLOAD DOJ MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON LINDKE V FREED BELOW AND RAVEN’S RESPONSE – CLICK LINKS
julianraven 
Leave a comment