WASHINGTON—The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit today ruled that the National Institutes of Health (NIH)’s 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.
“Today’s 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,” said Stephanie Krent, staff attorney with the Knight First Amendment Institute. “The court’s opinion makes clear 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.”
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 “torture,” “testing,” “animal,” “monkey,” and “primate.” Until this lawsuit was filed, the NIH also suppressed comments mentioning “PETA” or using the hashtag #stopanimaltesting.
“This is a win for transparency, the public, animals, and government accountability,” said PETA Senior Vice President Kathy Guillermo. “This landmark decision reinforces that NIH can no longer ‘distort’ the message to defend its use and funding of cruel, pointless experiments on animals.”
In today’s 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’s use of keyword blocking “skews sharply against the appellant’s viewpoint” and warned that government officials must “tread carefully when enforcing any speech restriction to ensure it is not viewpoint discriminatory and does not inappropriately censor criticism or exposure of government actions.” Today’s ruling reverses a decision made by a district court and directs that court to issue a summary judgment victory on behalf of the plaintiffs.
“Animal testing often takes place behind closed doors to keep the public in the dark about the harms that are actually taking place,” said Animal Legal Defense Fund Managing Attorney Caitlin Hawks. “It’s imperative that voices critical of animal testing are not suppressed and that public dialogue about these issues is allowed to take place.”
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’s 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.
Read today’s decision here.
Read more about the case here.
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.
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.
For more information, contact: Adriana Lamirande, [email protected]