NIH's Censorship Tactics Threaten First Amendment Rights
Submitted by MAGA
Posted 94 days ago
**Censorship Exposed: NIH's Unconstitutional Social Media Tactics Unraveled**
In a landmark decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has reignited the conversation on First Amendment rights, striking down the National Institutes of Health's (NIH) illegal censorship policies on social media.
The NIH's attempts to filter out comments criticizing its animal testing policies were deemed unconstitutional, showcasing a federal agency's overreach in suppressing free speech.
This ruling comes amid a broader effort by agencies like NIH and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to avoid scrutiny, especially regarding their controversial ties to COVID-19 research.
The NIH's efforts to censor dissenting voices had become increasingly apparent, including the suppression of keywords related to animal rights and testing on its social media pages.
In a bizarre twist, the NIH even blocked posts that involved common research animals and critical phrases. Notably, the agency did not provide a coherent definition of "off-topic," raising further concerns over its transparency and accountability.
The victory for animal rights advocates and conservative watchdog groups such as Judicial Watch reflects a growing unease with how government entities handle criticism. This highlights a crucial opportunity for accountability in the wake of recent revelations about NIH’s involvement in potentially dangerous research practices, including funding experiments that have drawn public outrage.
Inside the NIH, senior officials had been implicated in attempts to evade Freedom of Information Act requests regarding COVID-19 research, including significant concerns over the origins of the virus. The connection to widening scrutiny over the federal management during the pandemic adds another layer to this issue.
This week's ruling sends a clear message that government agencies cannot silence critics without consequences.
As individuals and organizations continue to advocate for transparency, this decision serves as a reaffirmation of the importance of open discourse in democracy.
The implications of this ruling extend beyond just animal rights; it represents a broader fight against censorship and a critical view of government practices that prioritize silence over accountability.
As conservatives rally to support these freedoms, it's essential to remain vigilant regarding the transparency of federal institutions, ensuring that the public can engage and question policies that impact their lives.
Sources:
justthenews.com
justthenews.com
newsweek.com
In a landmark decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has reignited the conversation on First Amendment rights, striking down the National Institutes of Health's (NIH) illegal censorship policies on social media.
The NIH's attempts to filter out comments criticizing its animal testing policies were deemed unconstitutional, showcasing a federal agency's overreach in suppressing free speech.
This ruling comes amid a broader effort by agencies like NIH and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to avoid scrutiny, especially regarding their controversial ties to COVID-19 research.
The NIH's efforts to censor dissenting voices had become increasingly apparent, including the suppression of keywords related to animal rights and testing on its social media pages.
In a bizarre twist, the NIH even blocked posts that involved common research animals and critical phrases. Notably, the agency did not provide a coherent definition of "off-topic," raising further concerns over its transparency and accountability.
The victory for animal rights advocates and conservative watchdog groups such as Judicial Watch reflects a growing unease with how government entities handle criticism. This highlights a crucial opportunity for accountability in the wake of recent revelations about NIH’s involvement in potentially dangerous research practices, including funding experiments that have drawn public outrage.
Inside the NIH, senior officials had been implicated in attempts to evade Freedom of Information Act requests regarding COVID-19 research, including significant concerns over the origins of the virus. The connection to widening scrutiny over the federal management during the pandemic adds another layer to this issue.
This week's ruling sends a clear message that government agencies cannot silence critics without consequences.
As individuals and organizations continue to advocate for transparency, this decision serves as a reaffirmation of the importance of open discourse in democracy.
The implications of this ruling extend beyond just animal rights; it represents a broader fight against censorship and a critical view of government practices that prioritize silence over accountability.
As conservatives rally to support these freedoms, it's essential to remain vigilant regarding the transparency of federal institutions, ensuring that the public can engage and question policies that impact their lives.
Sources:
justthenews.com
justthenews.com
newsweek.com
Latest News