A single line often inverts meaning once you see what it
answers, so neighbouring messages are always shown.
-
Hi Amanda, Thank you very much. I'm not sure we can get through everything in 30 minutes, but we can try. Lets tentatively set from 12:30-1pm. As to your comment that you haven't stopped the Instagram filters #stopanimaltesting, #stoptesting, and #stoptestingonanimals yet, can you please double check to confirm these are still on the list? I just checked NIH's most recent Instagram posts from my own personal Instagram account and I see #stoptestingonanimals and #stopanimaltesting comments. If this is still on the filter list, then this adds confusion as to why these comments are not hidden. For example, I see a #stoptestingonanimals on the December 3rd post about the POTUS briefing and on the December 3rd post about the placenta image. I also see a #stopanimaltesting on the November 19th post on Marsha's Alzheimer's Caregiver story. Essentially, your statement about the lawsuit is accurate, but only for moderating off-topic animal testing comments. The lawsuit is about the animal-related keyword filters. To not fight the lawsuit, NIH would have to stop all animal-related keyword filters to appease the plaintiffs to drop the suit. Since manual hiding is not at issue in the lawsuit, NIH would have full discretion to do manual hiding. However, if NIH instead of using the keyword filters manually hid comments each day, it is likely plaintiffs would pick up on their comments being hidden and file another lawsuit about the hiding. So, in my opinion, I don't see the benefit of attempting to moderate the animal testing comments through another hiding mechanism, since it will likely just end up in another lawsuit as soon as plaintiffs notice their comments are hidden. If you see any other angle of how off-topic animal testing comments could be moderated without alarming the plaintiffs to want to file another lawsuit, then I'm happy to discuss. Therefore, for NIH to continue moderating off-topic animal testing relating comments, it seems the only option is to defend NIH's practices through the lawsuit, and if NIH wins then it can continue as-is and have discretion to filter viewpoint-neutral animal-related keywords and conduct manual hiding, etc. If NIH doesn't win, then NIH would not be able to moderate off-topic animal testing comments. The scope of an injunction would only apply to the animal-testing keyword filters at issue. NIH would be able to continue to moderate off topic comments for subject matters outside of animals. Thank you, Sarah J. Imhoff, JD, MHSA Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel Public Health Division, NIH Branch (direct) @nih.gov This e-mail message is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) named above. It may contain information that is protected, privileged, or confidential, and it should not be disseminated, distributed, or copied to persons not authorized to receive such information. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately.
-
Hi Amanda, Thank you very much. I'm not sure we can get through everything in 30 minutes, but we can try. Lets tentatively set from 12:30-1pm. As to your comment that you haven't stopped the Instagram filters #stopanimaltesting, #stoptesting, and #stoptestingonanimals yet, can you please double check to confirm these are still on the list? I just checked NIH's most recent Instagram posts from my own personal Instagram account and I see #stoptestingonanimals and #stopanimaltesting comments. If this is still on the filter list, then this adds confusion as to why these comments are not hidden. For example, I see a #stoptestingonanimals on the December 3rd post about the POTUS briefing and on the December 3rd post about the placenta image. I also see a #stopanimaltesting on the November 19th post on Marsha's Alzheimer's Caregiver story. Essentially, your statement about the lawsuit is accurate, but only for moderating off topic animal testing comments. The lawsuit is about the animal-related keyword filters. To not fight the lawsuit, NIH would have to stop all animal-related keyword filters to appease the plaintiffs to drop the suit. Since manual hiding is not at issue in the lawsuit, NIH would have full discretion to do manual hiding. However, if NIH instead of using the keyword filters manually hid comments each day, it is likely plaintiffs would pick up on their comments being hidden and file another lawsuit about the hiding. So, in my opinion, I don't see the benefit of attempting to moderate the animal testing comments through another hiding mechanism, since it will likely just end up in another lawsuit as soon as plaintiffs notice their comments are hidden. If you see any other angle of how off-topic animal testing comments could be moderated without alarming the plaintiffs to want to file another lawsuit, then I'm happy to discuss. Therefore, for NIH to continue moderating off-topic animal testing relating comments, it seems the only option is to defend NIH's practices through the lawsuit, and if NIH wins then it can continue as-is and have discretion to filter viewpoint-neutral animal-related keywords and conduct manual hiding, etc. If NIH doesn't win, then NIH would not be able to moderate off-topic animal testing comments. The scope of an injunction would only apply to the animal testing keyword filters at issue. NIH would be able to continue to moderate off topic comments for subject matters outside of animals. Thank you, Sarah J. Imhoff, JD, MHSA Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel Public Health Division, NIH Branch (direct) @nih.gov /OD) [E] /OD) [E] Lankford, nate (NIH/OD) [E] limeni, Lydia /OD) [E] Lankford, nate (NIH/OD) [E] ie, Amanda This e-mail message is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) named above. It may contain information that is protected, privileged, or confidential, and it should not be disseminated, distributed, or copied to persons not authorized to receive such information. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately.
-
/OD) [E] Lankford, >; Polimeni, Hi everyone, I apologize for the confusion- my comments about the effect of losing the lawsuit - specifically the last two sentences of my prior email- need to be modified after further discussion with DOJ (yes at 11pm). I struck these sentences out below. The effect of NIH losing the lawsuit depends on how the Judge ultimately chooses to frame the injunction. It is more likely than not that the injunction would specifically target (i) the animal-testing filters and/or (ii) all efforts to target animal testing comments. Of course, there's always a chance that a Judge can issue a broad injunction that, say, concludes that the NIH social media pages are public forums, and that no "content-based restrictions" are allowed, i.e. moderating any comments based on subject matter. I hope this helps clarify that there are multiple options of how a judge could rule if NIH loses. Happy to discuss further on the call. Thanks again, Sarah J. Imhoff, JD, MHSA Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel Public Health Division, NIH Branch (direct) @nih.gov This e-mail message is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) named above. It may contain information that is protected, privileged, or confidential, and it should not be disseminated, distributed, or copied to persons not authorized to receive such information. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately.
-
Hi everyone, I apologize for the confusion- my comments about the effect of losing the lawsuit - specifically the last two sentences of my prior email- need to be modified after further discussion with DOJ (yes at 11pm). I struck these sentences out below. The effect of NIH losing the lawsuit depends on how the Judge ultimately chooses to frame the injunction. It is more likely than not that the injunction would specifically target (i) the animal-testing filters and/or (ii) all efforts to target animal testing comments. Of course, there's always a chance that a Judge can issue a broad injunction that, say, concludes that the NIH social media pages are public forums, and that no "content-based restrictions" are allowed, i.e. moderating any comments based on subject matter. I hope this helps clarify that there are multiple options of how a judge could rule if NIH loses. Happy to discuss further on the call. Thanks again, Sarah J. Imhoff, JD, MHSA Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel Public Health Division, NIH Branch (direct) @nih.gov This e-mail message is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) named above. It may contain information that is protected, privileged, or confidential, and it should not be disseminated, distributed, or copied to persons not authorized to receive such information. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately.
-
2021-12-08 23:24
Sarah J. Imhoff
Hi everyone, I apologize for the confusion- my comments about the effect of losing the lawsuit - specifically the last two sentences of my prior email- need to be modified after further discussion with DOJ (yes at 11pm). I struck these sentences out below. The effect of NIH losing the lawsuit depends on how the Judge ultimately chooses to frame the injunction. It is more likely than not that the injunction would specifically target (i) the animal-testing filters and/or (ii) all efforts to target animal testing comments. Of course, there's always a chance that a Judge can issue a broad injunction that, say, concludes that the NIH social media pages are public forums, and that no "content-based restrictions" are allowed, i.e. moderating any comments based on subject matter. I hope this helps clarify that there are multiple options of how a judge could rule if NIH loses. Happy to discuss further on the call. Thanks again, Sarah J. Imhoff, JD, MHSA Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel Public Health Division, NIH Branch (direct) @nih.gov This e-mail message is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) named above. It may contain information that is protected, privileged, or confidential, and it should not be disseminated, distributed, or copied to persons not authorized to receive such information. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately. 7PM /OD) /OD) [E] /OD) [E] > [E] Lankford, >; Polimeni, Lankford,
-
Hi everyone, I apologize for the confusion- my comments about the effect of losing the lawsuit - specifically the last two sentences of my prior email- need to be modified after further discussion with DOJ (yes at 11pm). I struck these sentences out below. The effect of NIH losing the lawsuit depends on how the Judge ultimately chooses to frame the injunction. It is more likely than not that the injunction would specifically target (i) the animal-testing filters and/or (ii) all efforts to target animal testing comments. Of course, there's always a chance that a Judge can issue a broad injunction that, say, concludes that the NIH social media pages are public forums, and that no "content-based restrictions" are allowed, i.e. moderating any comments based on subject matter. I hope this helps clarify that there are multiple options of how a judge could rule if NIH loses. Happy to discuss further on the call. Thanks again, Sarah J. Imhoff, JD, MHSA Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel Public Health Division, NIH Branch /OD) [E] Lankford, >; Polimeni, (direct) @nih.gov This e-mail message is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) named above. It may contain information that is protected, privileged, or confidential, and it should not be disseminated, distributed, or copied to persons not authorized to receive such information. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately.
-
Hi Sarah- Thank you for responding at such a late hour! Looking forward to talking through this tomorrow. Speak tomorrow, Amanda /OD) [E] Lankford, nate (NIH/OD) [E] limeni, Lydia > /OD) [E] Lankford, >; Polimeni,
-
Hi Sarah- Thank you for responding at such a late hour! Looking forward to talking through this tomorrow. Speak tomorrow, Amanda
-
Hi Sarah- Thank you for responding at such a late hour! Looking forward to talking through this tomorrow. Speak tomorrow, Amanda