NIH Hid Public Comments Package — page 114

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