The National Institutes of Health (NIH) violated the U.S. Constitution when it used keyword filters on its Facebook and Instagram pages to block comments criticizing the agency’s funding of animal testing, a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., ruled.
This news follows renewed criticism of Dr. Anthony Fauci, former director of NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, for lying to Congress during the “Beaglegate” scandal. Beaglegate refers to Fauci’s approval of NIH funding for experiments on beagles, according to the White Coat Waste Project.
PETA — along with the Animal Legal Defense Fund and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University — in 2021 sued the NIH and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on behalf of PETA and two individual social media users whose comments were removed from NIH posts.
The lawsuit alleged that NIH’s social media pages — which are open for comments from the general public — are “public forums” and that the agency’s policy of automatically blocking comments containing keywords associated with animal rights advocacy, such as “torture” and “cruelty,” unconstitutionally excluded speech from public forums based on viewpoint.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit concluded that the NIH’s keyword-blocking policy was “unreasonable under the First Amendment.” It said in its July 30 ruling that the right to praise or criticize governmental agents “lies at the heart of the First Amendment’s protections.”
Sophia Cope, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) who co-wrote an amicus brief supporting the plaintiffs, told The Defender, “Overall, we were very pleased. This is a strong ruling on the First Amendment and defending the First Amendment rights of social media commenters.”
Stephanie Krent, a staff attorney with the Knight First Amendment Institute who argued the case in April, agreed. She said in a press release that the court’s decision “reaffirms that the First Amendment forecloses government officials and public agencies from muzzling criticism on their official social media accounts.”
“The court’s opinion makes clear,” Kent added, “that officials can’t censor speech just because they disagree with it — and that’s true whether they delete specific comments or rely on digital tools like keyword blocking to do it for them.”
When asked to comment on the ruling, the NIH told The Defender it does not comment on pending litigation…
NIH Can’t Remove Negative Comments About Animal Testing From Social Media Pages, Court Rules
The NIH violated the U.S. Constitution when it used keyword filters on its Facebook and…
by Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) violated the U.S. Constitution when it used keyword filters on its Facebook and Instagram pages to block comments criticizing the agency’s funding of animal testing, a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., ruled.
This news follows renewed criticism of Dr. Anthony Fauci, former director of NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, for lying to Congress during the “Beaglegate” scandal. Beaglegate refers to Fauci’s approval of NIH funding for experiments on beagles, according to the White Coat Waste Project.
Nearly 50% of NIH’s research project funding pays for experiments using dogs, rats, monkeys, mice and other animals, according to the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA).
PETA — along with the Animal Legal Defense Fund and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University — in 2021 sued the NIH and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on behalf of PETA and two individual social media users whose comments were removed from NIH posts.
The lawsuit alleged that NIH’s social media pages — which are open for comments from the general public — are “public forums” and that the agency’s policy of automatically blocking comments containing keywords associated with animal rights advocacy, such as “torture” and “cruelty,” unconstitutionally excluded speech from public forums based on viewpoint.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit concluded that the NIH’s keyword-blocking policy was “unreasonable under the First Amendment.” It said in its July 30 ruling that the right to praise or criticize governmental agents “lies at the heart of the First Amendment’s protections.”
Sophia Cope, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) who co-wrote an amicus brief supporting the plaintiffs, told The Defender, “Overall, we were very pleased. This is a strong ruling on the First Amendment and defending the First Amendment rights of social media commenters.”
Stephanie Krent, a staff attorney with the Knight First Amendment Institute who argued the case in April, agreed. She said in a press release that the court’s decision “reaffirms that the First Amendment forecloses government officials and public agencies from muzzling criticism on their official social media accounts.”
“The court’s opinion makes clear,” Kent added, “that officials can’t censor speech just because they disagree with it — and that’s true whether they delete specific comments or rely on digital tools like keyword blocking to do it for them.”
When asked to comment on the ruling, the NIH told The Defender it does not comment on pending litigation…
READ FULL ARTICLE HERE… (childrenshealthdefense.org)
Home | Caravan to Midnight (zutalk.com)
We Need Your Help To Keep Caravan To Midnight Going,
Please Consider Donating To Help Keep Independent Media Independent
Published in Coronavirus, Crime, Health News, Opinion, Political News and US News