NIH Hid Public Comments Package — page 3
of 128 pages
← p.2 p.4 → · this page in the original PDF · package
/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.
From: Imhoff, Sarah (NIH/OD) [E]
Sent: Wednesday, December 8, 2021 10:57 PM
To: Fine, Amanda (NIH/OD) [E] <
@nih.gov>; Kern, Anna (NIH/OD) [E] <
@nih.gov>
Cc: Spruill, Crystal (NIH/OD) [C] <
@nih.gov>; Prince, Scott (NIH/OD) [E] <
@nih.gov>; Lankford,
David (NIH/OD) [E] <
@od31tm1.od.nih.gov>; Myles, Renate (NIH/OD) [E] <
@mail.nih.gov>; Polimeni,
Lydia (NIH/OD) [E] <
@nih.gov>
Subject: RE: PETA Lawsuit Update and Requests for Information
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
This is our OCR of the page, with running headers and footers removed. The
Committee's PDF
is authoritative; quote from it. Machine-readable, including the uncleaned
text: /api/page/nih_public_comments/3
Records on this page
| Record | Date | Type | Pages |
|---|---|---|---|
| RE: PETA Lawsuit Update and Requests for Information | 2021-12-08 | 3–4 | |
| RE: PETA Lawsuit Update and Requests for Information | 2021-12-08 | 2–3 |