A single line often inverts meaning once you see what it
answers, so neighbouring messages are always shown.
-
Hi everyone, I had a call with DOJ yesterday and am writing to answer questions from the last call, provide an update as to next steps and ask for some additional information. I thought it would be helpful to have this all in writing, but if you would like to have a call to discuss please let me know. The DOJ unfortunately needs the additional information ASAP, so if you could provide it by tomorrow that would be very helpful. As a first matter, we'd like to know who is the ultimate decision-maker for the team. There is a policy decision to be made, as described below, and we want to ensure the appropriate person is looped in and making the decision. Questions from Last Call 1. Should NIH should stop its blocking non-viewpoint neutral keywords? NIH should stop blocking the following keywords immediately: Facebook Peta Petalatino Instagram Peta iieve its desired goals d, will that also block '0 be blocked for it to When this is done, please let me know so I can give the date these keywords were no longer blocked to the DOJ. In terms of the following Instagram filters: #stopanimaltesting #stoptesting #stoptestingonanimals The DOJ is leaving this as a policy decision for NIH. The ideal solution would be for NIH to still achieve its desired goals without having these one-sided keywords blocked. For example, if the hashtag #testing is blocked, will that also block #stopanimaltesting, #stoptesting, and #stoptestingonanimals? Or, does the entire phrase need to be blocked for it to work? I do see "testing" is a manual filter, but not hashtag #testing- does this make a difference? The options are: 1. Remove the above filters and use a different neutral keyword hashtag to achieve the same effect to help stop the barrage of comments from PETA, such as #testing or #animals, if this would work, 2. Keep the above filters but add a hashtag representing the pro-animal testing side to achieve neutrality, if there are any commonly used proanimal testing words or hashtags such as #keepanimaltesting, 3. Remove the filters without additional changes if it isn't making much of a difference, or 4. Keep the filters without additional changes if options #1 and #2 are not feasible and these filters are key to stopping harassment from PETA. If you are considering option #4, while a court may find that these keywords are not viewpoint neutral, the DOJ said the worst that would happen is a court would order NIH to stop filtering these terms as part of its ruling. But, ideally we'd prefer options #1-3 for a stronger case. 2. What are the ramifications if NIH does not win the lawsuit? What does that mean NIH will and will not be able to moderate on its Facebook and Instagram pages? The DOJ explained that if NIH fully loses the case and the judge deems NIH's Facebook and Instagram as public forums and grants an injunction, NIH would still be able to moderate the platforms for the categories of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment, such as obscenity, fighting words, defamation, incitement to induce imminent lawless action, true threats, and solicitations to commit crimes. The DOJ did say that the NIH would not be able to moderate off-topic comments if the injunction is granted. If the NIH only lost on the viewpoint discrimination argument, but the platforms were not viewed as public forums, the DOJ's preliminary opinion is that the comment guidelines would only need a slight modification to clarify that animal testing as a general topic is off limits. Overall, the DOJ's opinion is that even if NIH fully lost the lawsuit, NIH would not be in a worse position than if it did not fight the lawsuit. Essentially, losing the lawsuit would only allow NIH to moderate the areas of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment and to not have any discretion outside of these areas. It appears that NIH not fighting the lawsuit and removing all animal- related filters would have a similar effect, although by not being under a court order NIH would still have discretion to moderate as it pleases, which would include off topic comments. However, if NIH removes all of the animal related filters to get PETA to drop the lawsuit and then manually moderates PETA's off topic comments, PETA may file another lawsuit about the manual moderation so it may not get us very far. Please let us know your thoughts on if you are in agreement with the DOJ's assessment that losing the case versus not fighting it would have a similar effect. Next Steps and Additional Requests for Information The DOJ and PETA have agreed to file a stipulation of facts to avoid discovery, and then the briefs for summary judgement will be drafted based on these facts. Summary judgement means the judge will make a decision on the injunction based on the briefs without holding a full trial. The deadline for the stipulation of facts is next Wednesday, December 8th but this may be pushed back a few days. The DOJ seeks some additional information from the NIH to fill in the facts, outlined below: 1. Manual Moderation of Comments a. What was the exact date NIH stopped manually moderating comments? I know it was after the lawsuit was filed, but can you give us the date? b. When NIH was manually moderating comments, what was the frequency? For example, was the manual hiding of comments weekly? daily? every 4 hours Monday-Friday? constantly? 2. Comment Guidelines- In its complaint, PETA states NIH's Facebook was created on October 14, 2008 (and Instagram created in 2018). From our emails, you stated OGC approved the Comment Guidelines in January 2015. a. Do you know the exact date the Comment Guidelines become in effect? b. Before these Comment Guidelines, were any other comment policy or guidelines in place from 2008-2015 for Facebook commenting? 3. Pro-Animal Testing Comments a. Is there any way you could find examples of pro-animal testing comments that were hidden? This can either be the comment itself, or a comment thread where there was an anti-animal testing comment and a pro animal testing advocate replied to that comment, but the entire comment thread with replies to the original comment was hidden? It would be very helpful if you could find 2-3 examples of this and provide us with screenshots. If the comment was manually hidden, that is fine. It would be preferable if you could find this during the time frame of the complaint, which is between September 2020 to September 2021. 4. PETA' effect on NIH Goals- The DOJ would like to include an argument showing how PETA's spamming of off topic comments inhibits NIH's mission. As the keyword blocking does target animal testing and PETA as we've discussed, the DOJ wants to justify this targeting to state that the case isn't a debate about animal testing but about harassment from PETA. a. Do you have any statistics about how often PETA comments compared to other comments? Or statistics about how many comments are about animal testing? If there is any way DOJ could state animal testing comments are 50% of the comments received but the NIH has only posted about animal testing for 5% of its posts, that would be helpful. b. Could you find specific examples of how PETA stands out among all other groups and comments? We are
-
Hi everyone, I had a call with DOJ yesterday and am writing to answer questions from the last call, provide an update as to next steps and ask for some additional information. I thought it would be helpful to have this all in writing, but if you would like to have a call to discuss please let me know. The DOJ unfortunately needs the additional information ASAP, so if you could provide it by tomorrow that would be very helpful. As a first matter, we'd like to know who is the ultimate decision-maker for the team. There is a policy decision to be made, as described below, and we want to ensure the appropriate person is looped in and making the decision. Questions from Last Call iieve its desired goals d, will that also block '0 be blocked for it to 1. Should NIH should stop its blocking non-viewpoint neutral keywords? NIH should stop blocking the following keywords immediately: Facebook Peta Petalatino Instagram Peta When this is done, please let me know so I can give the date these keywords were no longer blocked to the DOJ. In terms of the following Instagram filters: #stopanimaltesting #stoptesting #stoptestingonanimals The DOJ is leaving this as a policy decision for NIH. The ideal solution would be for NIH to still achieve its desired goals without having these one-sided keywords blocked. For example, if the hashtag #testing is blocked, will that also block #stopanimaltesting, #stoptesting, and #stoptestingonanimals? Or, does the entire phrase need to be blocked for it to work? I do see "testing" is a manual filter, but not hashtag #testing- does this make a difference? The options are: 1. Remove the above filters and use a different neutral keyword hashtag to achieve the same effect to help stop the barrage of comments from PETA, such as #testing or #animals, if this would work, 2. Keep the above filters but add a hashtag representing the pro-animal testing side to achieve neutrality, if there are any commonly used proanimal testing words or hashtags such as #keepanimaltesting, 3. Remove the filters without additional changes if it isn't making much of a difference, or 4. Keep the filters without additional changes if options #1 and #2 are not feasible and these filters are key to stopping harassment from PETA. If you are considering option #4, while a court may find that these keywords are not viewpoint neutral, the DOJ said the worst that would happen is a court would order NIH to stop filtering these terms as part of its ruling. But, ideally we'd prefer options #1-3 for a stronger case. 2. What are the ramifications if NIH does not win the lawsuit? What does that mean NIH will and will not be able to moderate on its Facebook and Instagram pages? The DOJ explained that if NIH fully loses the case and the judge deems NIH's Facebook and Instagram as public forums and grants an injunction, NIH would still be able to moderate the platforms for the categories of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment, such as obscenity, fighting words, defamation, incitement to induce imminent lawless action, true threats, and solicitations to commit crimes. The DOJ did say that the NIH would not be able to moderate off-topic comments if the injunction is granted. If the NIH only lost on the viewpoint discrimination argument, but the platforms were not viewed as public forums, the DOJ's preliminary opinion is that the comment guidelines would only need a slight modification to clarify that animal testing as a general topic is off limits. Overall, the DOJ's opinion is that even if NIH fully lost the lawsuit, NIH would not be in a worse position than if it did not fight the lawsuit. Essentially, losing the lawsuit would only allow NIH to moderate the areas of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment and to not have any discretion outside of these areas. It appears that NIH not fighting the lawsuit and removing all animal- related filters would have a similar effect, although by not being under a court order NIH would still have discretion to moderate as it pleases, which would include off topic comments. However, if NIH I know it was after the lawsuit was >in January 2015. discussed, irray. 1-2 examples with screenshots removes all of the animal related filters to get PETA to drop the lawsuit and then manually moderates PETA's off topic comments, PETA may file another lawsuit about the manual moderation so it may not get us very far. Please let us know your thoughts on if you are in agreement with the DOJ's assessment that losing the case versus not fighting it would have a similar effect. Next Steps and Additional Requests for Information The DOJ and PETA have agreed to file a stipulation of facts to avoid discovery, and then the briefs for summary judgement will be drafted based on these facts. Summary judgement means the judge will make a decision on the injunction based on the briefs without holding a full trial. The deadline for the stipulation of facts is next Wednesday, December 8th but this may be pushed back a few days. The DOJ seeks some additional information from the NIH to fill in the facts, outlined below: 1. Manual Moderation of Comments a. What was the exact date NIH stopped manually moderating comments? I know it was after the lawsuit was filed, but can you give us the date? b. When NIH was manually moderating comments, what was the frequency? For example, was the manual hiding of comments weekly? daily? every 4 hours Monday-Friday? constantly? 2. Comment Guidelines- In its complaint, PETA states NIH's Facebook was created on October 14, 2008 (and Instagram created in 2018). From our emails, you stated OGC approved the Comment Guidelines in January 2015. a. Do you know the exact date the Comment Guidelines become in effect? b. Before these Comment Guidelines, were any other comment policy or guidelines in place from 2008-2015 for Facebook commenting? 3. Pro-Animal Testing Comments a. Is there any way you could find examples of pro-animal testing comments that were hidden? This can either be the comment itself, or a comment thread where there was an anti-animal testing comment and a pro animal testing advocate replied to that comment, but the entire comment thread with replies to the original comment was hidden? It would be very helpful if you could find 2-3 examples of this and provide us with screenshots. If the comment was manually hidden, that is fine. It would be preferable if you could find this during the time frame of the complaint, which is between September 2020 to September 2021. 4. PETA' effect on NIH Goals- The DOJ would like to include an argument showing how PETA's spamming of off topic comments inhibits NIH's mission. As the keyword blocking does target animal testing and PETA as we've discussed, the DOJ wants to justify this targeting to state that the case isn't a debate about animal testing but about harassment from PETA. a. Do you have any statistics about how often PETA comments compared to other comments? Or statistics about how many comments are about animal testing? If there is any way DOJ could state animal testing comments are 50% of the comments received but the NIH has only posted about animal testing for 5% of its posts, that would be helpful. b. Could you find specific examples of how PETA stands out among all other groups and comments? We are
-
; ieni, Lydia ) () <a > /OD) (€] Lankford, Thanks, Sarah! We'll take a look and try to get you answers. I'm out tomorrow and Friday, and we're handling the POTUS visit tomorrow, so we're completely underwater. Is there any possibility for us to get back to you by COB Monday? I know it's longer than ideal, but just want to make sure we are able to give this the attention it needs. Thanks! Amanda
-
Thanks, Sarah! We'll take a look and try to get you answers. I'm out tomorrow and Friday, and we're handling the POTUS visit tomorrow, so we're completely underwater. Is there any possibility for us to get back to you by COB Monday? I know it's longer than ideal, but just want to make sure we are able to give this the attention it needs. Thanks! Amanda
-
2021-12-01 11:46
Amanda Fine
Thanks, Sarah! We'll take a look and try to get you answers. I'm out tomorrow and Friday, and we're handling the POTUS visit tomorrow, so we're completely underwater. Is there any possibility for us to get back to you by COB Monday? I know it's longer than ideal, but just want to make sure we are able to give this the attention it needs. Thanks! Amanda
-
Hi Amanda, Wow of course! I'll check with DOJ on timeline. I know they thought if we were going to make the deadline we'd need to get a draft back to PETA by the weekend... but they were already thinking we wouldn't make it since PETA got us their draft later than they promised....I know its super short notice. I'll touch base with them to see if they can get started on an extension request today to get us some additional time. Thanks, 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, Wow of course! I'll check with DOJ on timeline. I know they thought if we were going to make the deadline we'd need to get a draft back to PETA by the weekend... but they were already thinking we wouldn't make it since PETA got us their draft later than they promised....I know its super short notice. I'll touch base with them to see if they can get started on an extension request today to get us some additional time. Thanks, 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, Wow of course! I'll check with DOJ on timeline. I know they thought if we were going to make the deadline we'd need to get a draft back to PETA by the weekend... but they were already thinking we wouldn't make it since PETA got us their draft later than they promised....I know its super short notice. I'll touch base with them to see if they can get started on an extension request today to get us some additional time. Thanks, Sarah J. Imhoff, JD, MHSA Senior Attorney ) (e] <a ) (e) <a 00) (I > 00) I -- > 00) I eni, Lydia Lankford, ieni, Lydia Lankford, 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, 00) (I » 00) i ) > 00) eni, Lydia Lankford, ieni, Lydia Lankford, Wow of course! I'll check with DOJ on timeline. I know they thought if we were going to make the deadline we'd need to get a draft back to PETA by the weekend... but they were already thinking we wouldn't make it since PETA got us their draft later than they promised....I know its super short notice. I'll touch base with them to see if they can get started on an extension request today to get us some additional time. Thanks, 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.