“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, adriana.lamirande@knightcolumbia.org 

“We’re disappointed that the court ruled in favor of a government agency that was clearly using keyword blocking to censor critical comments on its official social media accounts,” said Stephanie Krent, a staff attorney with the Knight First Amendment Institute. “The government cannot be permitted to distort public debate on important political issues like animal testing, and we will be appealing the court’s decision.”

The NIH admitted that it blocks keywords associated with animal advocacy from appearing in comments on its Facebook page and Instagram account. Through keyword blocking, the NIH automatically hides all comments containing words like "torture," "testing," "animal," "monkey," and "primate." The NIH used to suppress comments mentioning "PETA" or using the hashtag #stopanimaltesting, but it ended that practice in late 2021 after this lawsuit was filed.

“This unfortunate decision green lights the NIH’s blatant attempt to cut off crucial dialogue about taxpayer-funded animal exploitation,” said PETA Senior Vice President Kathy Guillermo. “Government social media pages should be forums for vibrant public debate, not anti-animal echo chambers. We look forward to vindicating our First Amendment rights on appeal.”

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 have 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.

“The court’s ruling is a disappointing decision that opens the door to continued government censorship on social media,” said Animal Legal Defense Fund Managing Attorney Christopher Berry. “We will continue to fight for the right to speak publicly against all means of animal exploitation and testing—a right guaranteed by the First Amendment.”

Read the decision here.

Read more about the lawsuit here.

The U.S. Courts of Appeals for both the Second and Fourth Circuits have held that public officials who block people from their official social media accounts based on viewpoint are violating the First Amendment. In Knight Institute v. Trump, the Second Circuit held that then-President Trump could not block users from his @realDonaldTrump account because “he disagree[d] with their speech.” In April 2021, after Trump was no longer president, the Supreme Court found the case to be moot and vacated the Second Circuit decision on that basis, without addressing the merits. 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 and Christopher A. Berry of ALDF; and Jeff Stein and Asher Smith of PETA.

For more information, contact Adriana Lamirande, Knight First Amendment Institute, adriana.lamirande@knightcolumbia.org.

“A bedrock principle of the First Amendment is that the government can’t silence its critics because it doesn’t like what they have to say,” said Stephanie Krent, a staff attorney with the Knight First Amendment Institute. “The NIH has opened parts of its Facebook page and Instagram account for public discourse, but it suppresses speech critical of the agency’s involvement in animal testing. Numerous courts have held that viewpoint discrimination is not permissible in digital public forums, and this court should follow suit.”

After this lawsuit was filed in September 2021, the NIH stopped blocking comments mentioning PETA or using the hashtag #stopanimaltesting. But in a joint stipulation filed in February, the agency admitted that it still blocks comments containing words commonly used by animal advocates, including “torture,” “testing,” “animal,” “monkey,” and “primate.” The plaintiffs assert that the agency’s practice of suppressing animal advocacy violates the First Amendment.

“Blocking words such as ‘monkey,’ ‘torture’ and ‘animal testing’—while allowing comments on all other topics—is clearly meant to preempt public discussion about the NIH’s use of animals in experiments,” said PETA Senior Vice President Kathy Guillermo. “The NIH is responsible to the public that funds it and should be fostering dialogue, not suppressing it.”

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 have 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.

“We live in a digital age, where social media has become a primary platform for people to review, engage with, and respond to information,” said Animal Legal Defense Fund Executive Director Stephen Wells. “When government agencies silence critics of animal testing and stifle discourse, it can only perpetuate unpopular policies that keep animals in laboratories and leave the public underinformed.”

Read today’s motion for summary judgment here.

Read more about the lawsuit here.

The U.S. Courts of Appeals for both the Second and Fourth Circuits have held that public officials who block people from their official social media accounts based on viewpoint are violating the First Amendment. In Knight Institute v. Trump, the Second Circuit held that then-President Trump could not block users from his @realDonaldTrump account because “he disagree[d] with their speech.” Last year, the Supreme Court found the case to be moot and vacated the Second Circuit decision on that basis, without addressing the merits. Read more about that case here.

Lawyers on the case include, in addition to Krent, Jameel Jaffer, Katie Fallow, and Alyssa Morones of the Knight Institute; Caitlin M. Foley and Christopher A. Berry of ALDF; and Asher Smith of PETA.  

For more information, contact Adriana Lamirande, Knight First Amendment Institute, adriana.lamirande@knightcolumbia.org.

“Preemptively blocking comments containing words like ‘monkey,’ ‘cat,’ ‘torture,’ and ‘stop’ not only prevents PETA and others from advocating against the mistreatment of animals, it cuts off critical public dialogue on issues affecting all of us,”said PETA Senior Vice President Kathy Guillermo. “The government should be fostering public conversations–not hiding behind automatic filters.”

As today’s complaint explains, after attempting to communicate their views on animal testing on the NIH’s social media pages, the plaintiffs discovered through a Freedom of Information request that the NIH uses keyword filters that block numerous words and phrases associated with animal rights advocacy, including “animal(s),” “chimpanzee(s),” “monkey(s),” “cats,” “mouse,” “experiment,” “testing,” “PETA,” “torture,” and “revolting.” The automatic filters have hidden many of the plaintiffs’ comments criticizing the government’s treatment of animals, and have prevented them from contributing to public discourse on medical research, science, and bioethics. PETA also discovered that the HHS blocks all comments containing the term “monkey” after its employees attempted to communicate on the HHS’s Facebook page.

“Multiple courts have recognized that government-run social media accounts that are open for public comments are public forums under the First Amendment, and that the government cannot discriminate in these digital spaces based on viewpoint,” said Stephanie Krent, a staff attorney with the Knight First Amendment Institute. “The First Amendment protects people’s right to express their views in public forums, including views that are critical of the government’s own positions and practices.”

Plaintiffs in today’s case include, in addition to PETA, Madeline Krasno, a former animal research lab technician turned animal advocate, and Ryan Hartkopf, an engineer in the digital health field. They have had their comments to the NIH’s Facebook or Instagram pages hidden because they were critical of, or contained keywords associated with criticism of, the government’s role in animal testing.

“Stifling public debate over the controversial issue of animal testing prevents animal cruelty and wasted tax dollars from coming to light,” said Animal Legal Defense Fund Executive Director Stephen Wells. “The Animal Legal Defense Fund will continue to challenge First Amendment violations across the country that conceal animal cruelty from the public.”

The U.S. Courts of Appeals for both the Second and Fourth Circuits have held that public officials who block people from their official social media accounts based on viewpoint are violating the First Amendment. In Knight Institute v. Trump, the Second Circuit held that President Trump could not block users from his @realDonaldTrump account because “he disagree[d] with their speech.” Earlier this year, the Supreme Court found the case to be moot and vacated the Second Circuit decision on that basis, without addressing the merits. Read more about that case here.

Read today’s complaint here.

Lawyers on the case include, in addition to Krent, Jameel Jaffer, Katie Fallow, and Lyndsey Wajert of the Knight Institute; Caitlin Foley of ALDF; and Asher Smith of PETA.

For more information, contact: Lorraine Kenny, communications director, lorraine.kenny@knightcolumbia.org.