Justice Delayed - Justice Denied! Raven Files Motion to Compel in Smithsonian Twitter Free Speech Case against Director of National Portrait Gallery

WASHINGTON - Sept. 25, 2024 - PRLog -- Plaintiff Raven has filed a Motion to Compel, urging the U.S. District Court to expedite its ruling in a critical First Amendment lawsuit against the Smithsonian Institution and National Portrait Gallery Director Kim Sajet (Case No. 22-vc-2809). The motion comes after more than fourteen months of judicial delay, during which time Raven's free speech rights have remained in question. The court had previously postponed its ruling, pending the Supreme Court's decision in March of 2024 in Lindke v. Freed, but despite the resolution of that case, a final decision has yet to be issued.

The motion references key Supreme Court rulings that mandate prompt judicial action in cases where constitutional rights, particularly free speech, are at stake. Notably, Elrod v. Burns (1976) asserts that the loss of First Amendment freedoms, even temporarily, causes irreparable harm, requiring courts to prioritize these cases. Raven's legal team contends that the ongoing delay exacerbates the harm by chilling their right to free expression.

"Delays in justice, especially when constitutional rights are on the line, are unacceptable," said Raven. "The courts have a duty to act swiftly, particularly when free speech is being unlawfully suppressed. My right to speak freely has been jeopardized for far too long."

The lawsuit stems from allegations that the Smithsonian Institution, under the direction of Kim Sajet, violated Raven's First Amendment rights by suppressing expressive activities and viewpoints by banning Raven on Twitter (now X). Raven argues that the delay in the ruling—despite clear guidance from the Supreme Court in Lindke v. Freed—has resulted in further harm to the Plaintiff, keeping his speech unlawfully silenced.

This case has garnered widespread attention due to its potential implications for free speech rights in public spaces, particularly within institutions like the Smithsonian, which play a crucial role in shaping national cultural discourse. A ruling in favor of Raven could set a precedent for how public institutions run by the federal government must respect and protect free-speech rights moving forward.

Raven's book 'Odious and Cerberus' highlights the continued reluctance of the federal courts, even SCOTUS to which he appealed, to act negatively against the Smithsonian Institution.

In his motion, Raven cited the U.S. Supreme Court's emphasis on the urgency of free speech cases in New York Times Co. v. United States (1971) and Citizens United v. FEC (2010), both of which highlight the dangers of delaying rulings on speech-related issues. Raven insists that this Court must follow suit and act promptly.

Raven now awaits the court's response to the Motion to Compel, which could bring this closely watched First Amendment case to a conclusion.