so uninformed as to what is actually being done, full of conspiracy theory, or blatant hate-filled propaganda that it defeats any efforts to address any true concerns these groups might have. And I consider myself to be a life-long animal rights activist, but likewise a very well-informed follower, consumer, and user of critical medical research.

So, these groups should be allowed (and they are) official means of communicating and registering their concerns--which should be addressed. However, anonymous, vile, fact-FREE and misleading public comments are not the way. F>>k that. We have enough BS being propelled with respect to Science now.

One of the plaintiffs who is being blocked worked at an NIH-funded primate lab for 3 years. It does seem that a lot of people are just posting inflammatory responses to PETA campaigns, but blocking everyone indiscriminately for using animal-related words is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

There are formal mechanisms for providing comments which are inclusive. That is not it. No more than you can sue your newspaper for refusing to accept comments under any given story.

They can block whoever they want, legally. However there is legal precedent to consider media platforms "public forums" when they are used by public institutions. Also Facebook is not anonymous. But I am not a lawyer...

public commentary. It has guidelines. And that does not include requiring a publicly viewable site for any anonymous comment from the kind of conspiracy-driven or RW idiots that post disruptive content. It requires accepting public submission of comment.

In Knight v. Trump, it was ruled that Trump could not block his critics on Twitter, because it is a public forum.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/may/23/trump-twitter-block-ruling-court-public-forum-account

So did the Supreme Court, unanimously, in Packingham v. North Carolina in 2017:

"A fundamental principle of the First Amendment is that
all persons have access to places where they can speak
and listen, and then, after reflection, speak and listen once
more. The Court has sought to protect the right to speak
in this spatial context. A basic rule, for example, is that a
street or a park is a quintessential forum for the exercise
of First Amendment rights. See Ward v. Rock Against
Racism, 491 U. S. 781, 796 (1989). Even in the modern
era, these places are still essential venues for public gath-
erings to celebrate some views, to protest others, or simply
to learn and inquire.
While in the past there may have been difficulty in identifying the most important places (in a spatial sense)
for the exchange of views, today the answer is clear. It is
cyberspace—the “vast democratic forums of the Internet”
in general, Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521
U. S. 844, 868 (1997), and social media in particular."

You need to do some research on Federal Agencies and OMB.

Honestly. You really do.

It sounds like you are referring to the public comment process for proposed policy and regulations, whereas I am referring to the First Amendment right to free speech in a public forum, which is the subject of this case.

Gorgonzola. Cheese and made up word.

have to do with the topic?

Dewey Decimal 637.35: Varieties [of cheese]; the categories of cream cheese, ripened soft cheeses (e.g., Brie, Camembert, Gorgonzola, and Limburger)

... it becomes gorgenzola

Embarrassing recovery.

This reminds me of the time PETA protested a town called fishkill.

As priorities go with animal cruelty factory farming is the number one issue.

I am pragmatic..the NIH is hardly the number one abuser of animals. I mean I am sure there are some hideous people at the NIH (as there are in any group that large), but by and large they are a decent bunch relatively speaking.

I would say most stuff to do with pets, scientific research etc. should be way down the list. Factory farming, especially of birds, is one of the greatest sources of cruelty out there. Besides we don't yet have options to animal testing. It may be ridiculous to test on animals for cosmetics but say cancer medications..we cannot paint all animal testing as unnecesary. Unless you want to go the Steve Jobs route or this crap I disapprove of this sort of drivel-two sets of loonies joining forces..ugh:

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/oct/17/eva-wiseman-conspirituality-the-dark-side-of-wellness-how-it-all-got-so-toxic

They may be on their way (organoids etc.) but on humane or green grounds alone lab grown burgers I would argue are the priority.

We think absurdly as a species..I blame poor math education which makes any comprehension of scale hard. People cry over Cecile the lion or this or that symbolic issue but the cold hard facts of habitat loss, factory farming..the sheer numbers with all those are bigger than symbolic issues like the NIH being a bit dickish. They are a large group. They will have their share of pricks..shrug..But way fewer than most other institutions.


I liked this:
https://the.ink/p/can-a-vegan-hunt


Peta is a good group..I like them very much. But they need to squash the miscreants who think any ploy for attention is better than none. They make all of us (full disclosure: semi "rabid" animal activist here ;-/..but essentially rational) look foolish with crap like this.


(Apologies if misandry or offense are perceived wrt the swearing. I am oldish and find it a stress buster. Profanities keep my temper under control. It is a trade off..besides no one reads this forum anyway.)