Judge to decide Raven v Smithsonian Director Free Speech 'X' Twitter Case after SCOTUS landmark Lindke v Freed decision

Federal Judge Christopher Cooper presides over a pivotal free-speech case post-SCOTUS Lindke v. Freed, examining social media rights amid Raven v. Smithsonian.

WASHINGTON D.C., DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, UNITED STATES, April 25, 2024 /EINPresswire.com/ -- Federal Judge Christopher R. Cooper of the District of Columbia’s District Court presides over a significant legal test, marking the first major free-speech case since the recent SCOTUS decision in Lindke v Freed. This seminal legal battle delves into the complexities of Free Speech rights on social media platforms in the digital era, with the recent Lindke v. Freed SCOTUS decision serving as a cornerstone.

In 2023, Judge Cooper deferred his final ruling in the high-profile Raven v. Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery Director Kim Sajet case (Case Number CV 22-2809–CRC). Smithsonian Director Kim Sajet’s motion to dismiss was denied, while Judge Cooper awaited the outcome of the social-media Free Speech cases, including O’Connor-Ratcliff v Garnier, before the US Supreme Court, highlighting the case's significance for First Amendment protections in the digital realm.

The recent SCOTUS ruling establishes the boundaries for government officials and their actions in the realm of Free Speech on social media, emphasizing the importance of protecting individuals' rights to express themselves online. Artist Julian Raven's commitment to 1st Amendment justice underscores the enduring relevance of political Free Speech in our democracy. Raven sued Kim Sajet and the Smithsonian to vindicate his 1st Amendment Free-Speech rights.

Raven's legal battles against the Smithsonian Institution and portrait gallery Director Kim Sajet culminated in a landmark appeal to the US Supreme Court, underscoring the complexities of the case. Chief Justice Roberts' recusal from that case due to his dual role as chancellor of the Smithsonian Institution highlights the intricate nature of institutional interests versus constitutional principles.

Recently, the unanimous SCOTUS decision in Lindke v. Freed established a two-pronged test to measure government speech across the nation. In the wake of Raven’s 2022 publication of his book and Smithsonian expose, according to court filings in the case, Director Kim Sajet blocked the Artist and Author from the Director’s 'X' formerly Twitter page.

During Raven's initial Free Speech lawsuit (case number 17-cv-01240-TNM), his motion for sanctions for the spoliation of evidence regarding Sajet’s political use of the Smithsonian’s official Twitter page was denied. The record on the docket regarding the Director’s Twitter account presents unanswered questions about the actions taken by the Smithsonian Institution, warranting further investigation.

The recent legal precedent set by Lindke v. Freed provides valuable guidance in navigating the balance between official government speech and personal expression. The Department of Justice's defense of Director Kim Sajet's Twitter account highlights the importance of judicial clarity in protecting Free Speech rights.

As Judge Christopher Cooper navigates the complexities of the free-speech law in the District of Columbia’s District Court, Julian Raven, who is representing himself, awaits the opinion in Raven v Sajet, case number 22-CV-2809-CRC. The outcome of this case could have implications for Free Speech jurisprudence.

You can read the recent filings with the District Court for the District of Columbia at the end of this article here: https://julianraven.wordpress.com/2024/04/21/first-major-social-media-free-speech-test-of-scotus-landmark-decision-in-linke-v-freed-raven-v-smithsonian-director-kim-sajet/.

For interviews follow link to https://www.julianraven.com

Julian Raven
Julian Raven Artist
info@julianraven.com
Visit us on social media:
Twitter