{"id":776180,"date":"2024-07-31T08:40:53","date_gmt":"2024-07-31T12:40:53","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/animalrightswatch.us\/?p=776180"},"modified":"2024-07-31T10:26:18","modified_gmt":"2024-07-31T14:26:18","slug":"free-animals-speech-nih-loses-lawsuit-filed-by-animal-rights-activists-over-censoring-social-media-comments","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/animalrightswatch.us\/?p=776180","title":{"rendered":"#StopAnimalTesting: NIH loses lawsuit over censoring social media comments filed by animal rights groups"},"content":{"rendered":"\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t

The D.C. appeals court found that in blocking the comments, NIH engaged in free speech violation, known as 'viewpoint discrimination'. NIH chose to moderate comment threads in a way that skewed sharply against viewpoints that the agency should stop funding animal testing by filtering terms such as \u2018torture\u2019, \u2018cruel,\u2019 and \u2018#StopAnimalTesting.<\/p>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/blockquote>\n\n

MEREDITH WADMAN:<\/strong> A U.S. Appeals Court in Washington, D.C.,… found that the U.S. National Institutes of Health violated free speech protections when it automatically hid comments on its social media pages containing keywords typically used by opponents of NIH-funded animal research.<\/em><\/p>\n

Reversing a lower court decision, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit unanimously ruled<\/a> that NIH was on the wrong side of the First Amendment when it used filters to hide from public view comments with keywords including \u201cmonkey,\u201d \u201cexperiment,\u201d and \u201ctorture\u201d on its Facebook and Instagram pages. The agency had done so, it said, in order to enforce \u201coff-topic\u201d rules it has established for social media comments.<\/em><\/p>\n

\u201cTo say that comments related to animal testing are categorically off-topic when a significant portion of NIH\u2019s posts are about research conducted on animals defies common sense,\u201d wrote the judges, two of whom were appointed by Democratic presidents.<\/em><\/p>\n

The permanent policy, and the fact NIH didn\u2019t try to manually resurrect relevant comments that were automatically hidden, \u201creinforces its unreasonableness,\u201d the judges added\u2014especially given the lack of evidence that comments protesting animal research hurt the agency\u2019s public communication efforts. They ordered the case returned to the lower court with instructions that it rule in favor of the plaintiffs…<\/em><\/p>\n

The D.C. appeals court also found that in blocking the comments, NIH likely engaged in another free speech violation, known as \u201cviewpoint discrimination\u201d and warned it to \u201ctread carefully.\u201d But the court didn\u2019t rule on this because it had already established that the unreasonableness of the agency\u2019s policy violated the First Amendment.<\/em><\/p>\n

\u201cThe right to \u2018praise or criticize governmental agents\u2019 lies at the heart of the First Amendment\u2019s protections,\u201d the court wrote, citing earlier case law. \u201cNIH chose to moderate its comment threads in a way that skews sharply against the appellants\u2019 viewpoint that the agency should stop funding animal testing by filtering terms such as \u2018torture\u2019 and \u2018cruel,\u2019 not to mention terms previously included such as \u2018PETA\u2019 and \u2018#stopanimaltesting.\u2019\u201d…<\/em><\/p>\n

The decision \u201cis a major victory\u201d for free speech, said Stephanie Krent of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, the lead attorney representing the plaintiffs. \u201cThe court\u2019s opinion makes clear that [government] officials can\u2019t censor speech just because they disagree with it\u2014and that\u2019s true whether they delete specific comments or rely on digital tools like keyword blocking to do it for them.\u201d SOURCE…<\/strong><\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

PETA PRESS RELEASE STATEMENT: Knight Institute, PETA, and Animal Legal Defense Fund say decision is victory for free speech online<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit today ruled that the National Institutes of Health (NIH)\u2019s use of keyword blocking, which targets comments critical of animal testing, violates the First Amendment. Its decision comes in response to a lawsuit brought by the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), and the Animal Legal Defense Fund.<\/em><\/p>\n

\u201cToday\u2019s ruling is a major victory and reaffirms that the First Amendment forecloses government officials and public agencies from muzzling criticism on their official social media accounts,\u201d said Stephanie Krent, staff attorney with the Knight First Amendment Institute. \u201cThe court\u2019s opinion makes clear that officials can\u2019t censor speech just because they disagree with it\u2014 and that\u2019s true whether they delete specific comments or rely on digital tools like keyword blocking to do it for them.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

The NIH blocked keywords critical of its role funding animal testing research from appearing in comments on its Facebook page and Instagram account. Through keyword blocking, the NIH automatically hid all comments containing words like \u201ctorture,\u201d \u201ctesting,\u201d \u201canimal,\u201d \u201cmonkey,\u201d and \u201cprimate.\u201d Until this lawsuit was filed, the NIH also suppressed comments mentioning \u201cPETA\u201d or using the hashtag #stopanimaltesting.<\/em><\/p>\n

\u201cThis is a win for transparency, the public, animals, and government accountability,\u201d said PETA Senior Vice President Kathy Guillermo. \u201cThis landmark decision reinforces that NIH can no longer \u2018distort\u2019 the message to defend its use and funding of cruel, pointless experiments on animals.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

In today\u2019s decision, the court concluded that it was unreasonable for the NIH to ban discussion of animal testing, when several of its own posts promoted animal testing. The court noted that the agency\u2019s use of keyword blocking \u201cskews sharply against the appellant\u2019s viewpoint\u201d and warned that government officials must \u201ctread carefully when enforcing any speech restriction to ensure it is not viewpoint discriminatory and does not inappropriately censor criticism or exposure of government actions.\u201d \u200b\u200bToday\u2019s ruling reverses a decision made by a district court and directs that court to issue a summary judgment victory on behalf of the plaintiffs.<\/em><\/p>\n

\u201cAnimal testing often takes place behind closed doors to keep the public in the dark about the harms that are actually taking place,\u201d said Animal Legal Defense Fund Managing Attorney Caitlin Hawks. \u201cIt\u2019s imperative that voices critical of animal testing are not suppressed and that public dialogue about these issues is allowed to take place.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

In addition to PETA, plaintiffs in the lawsuit include Madeline Krasno, a former animal research lab technician turned animal advocate, and Ryan Hartkopf, an engineer in the digital health field. They had comments hidden by the agency\u2019s keyword blocking practice on numerous occasions, making it far more difficult for them to communicate their message on these platforms, to raise public awareness of animal testing practices, and to hear the speech of others who want to discuss animal testing…<\/em><\/p>\n

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit is also considering whether the use of keyword blocking to suppress criticism on social media violates the First Amendment. In that case, plaintiff Madeline Krasno is represented by the Animal Legal Defense Fund, and the Knight Institute and PETA submitted an amicus brief explaining the rise in censorship on official social media accounts and arguing that prohibiting the use of keywords associated with disfavored perspectives is unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. Read more about that case here: https:\/\/knightcolumbia.org\/cases\/krasno-v-mnookin<\/em><\/p>\n

Lawyers on the case include, in addition to Krent, Jameel Jaffer, Katie Fallow, and Alexia Ramirez of the Knight Institute; Caitlin M. Foley of ALDF; and Ashley Ridgway and Asher Smith of PETA Foundation. SOURCE…<\/a><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

RELATED VIDEO:<\/strong><\/p>\n