A federal appeals court in Washington ruled that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) violated the First Amendment rights of its social media audience by limiting comments about animal testing on platforms like Facebook and Instagram.
The case started when animal rights activists kept posting comments against NIH’s programs that tested drugs or medical procedures on animals. NIH used filters to block comments with words like “animals,” “cruelty,” “monkeys,” “testing,” and “torture.”
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) filed a lawsuit against NIH in 2021. They were joined by Madeline Krasno and Ryan Hartkopf, who had their comments removed from NIH posts.
Krasno told The Washington Post that she saw animal abuse in a monkey research lab at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. She started sharing her experiences online, but the university and NIH removed her comments.
Krasno wrote an NIH Instagram post about COVID-19, “It’s time we had an open conversation about all the animal testing you fund. What a waste of life and resources.” The comment was deleted because the words “animal” and “testing” were blocked by NIH’s keyword filters.
The University of Wisconsin and NIH said they were trying to keep their social media pages from getting filled with repetitive and off-topic comments. In April, Justice Department lawyer Jennifer Utrecht told the appeals court that it seemed like there was a plan to overload NIH’s social media pages with comments about animal testing that weren’t related to their posts.
However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said NIH didn’t have a good reason for blocking these comments and found the censorship unreasonable.
Stephanie Krent, a lawyer with the Knight First Amendment Institute who worked on the case, said the ruling was a big victory. It shows that the First Amendment prevents government agencies from silencing people on their social media accounts.
She explained that officials can’t block comments just because they don’t like them, whether they delete them themselves or use tools like keyword filters.
With help from the Animal Legal Defense Fund, Krasno sued the University of Wisconsin and the NIH. Federal courts, including Judge Beryl A. Howell in Washington, decided against her. Howell said the issue was new for courts dealing with the First Amendment and thought NIH’s content rules were okay.
However, the appeals court ruling, written by Judge Bradley N. Garcia, said NIH didn’t create clear and fair rules for deciding what comments are “on-topic” and “off-topic.”
Garcia said it doesn’t make sense to call comments about animal testing off-topic. Many of NIH’s posts are about animal research. He wrote that the First Amendment protects people’s right to praise or criticize government officials. Blocking comments with words often used by animal rights advocates could interfere with how people discuss NIH’s work.
NIH responded to the ruling by stating that it disagreed with the court’s decision. The agency emphasized its commitment to transparency and said it was reviewing the court’s opinion to decide on any next steps. NIH indicated it might appeal the ruling or change its social media policies based on the court’s findings.
If NIH appeals the ruling, the case goes to a higher court. The new court could either agree with the previous decision, overturn it, or return the case for further review. Given the emphasis on First Amendment rights and the appeals court’s finding on content restrictions, it might be challenging for NIH to overturn the ruling.
Until a final decision is made, the current ruling remains in effect, and NIH needs to follow the guidelines set by the appeals court.
PETA Senior Vice President Kathy Guillermo said the ruling is a victory for the public and animals and is another step in holding the government accountable.
Krasno agreed and said she was excited about the ruling. She hoped it would impact the case with Wisconsin and change how universities everywhere deal with similar issues. She mentioned that universities using public money shouldn’t be able to block comments they don’t like.
The case is just one part of a bigger problem. The government has become far too comfortable with censorship. But that’s what the left calls for, and it’s the new “law of the land.”
At least until November.
