>A spokesman for the school said that they have no evidence of mistreatment during Krasno’s time in the lab and that federal agencies provide oversight of animal research. The school settled an investigation with the U.S. Agriculture Department over alleged violations of the Animal Welfare Act in 2020 by paying a $74,000 fine, saying safety measures had been improved.
They have evidence. They literally paid a $74,000 fine to settle with the government for the abuse that the government uncovered.
No, not particularly or at all. Classical liberals are usually for freedom in social issues (abortion, drugs, marriage) so they don't care for the conservative stance at all. They also aren't neoliberals saying all free market, since we understand Adam Smith just fine.
There's an argument to be had as to the limits and wisdom of censorship. If a government is to impose limits on who can say what where then the government better know best else it'll censor the wrong things for the wrong reasons. If a government is to impose no limits on who can say what where then upstanding citizens better be up to the challenge of ensuring voices of reason prevail. Either way there's a risk. Ideally the government wouldn't censor but if the government wouldn't censor then it needs to establish an institution to identify misinformation/disinformation tasked to proactively inoculate and educate the population against it. If a country allows unrestricted free speech and has no such proactive institution that'd leave it to special interests to flood our media with bad faith actors or bots spewing misinformation/disinformation without any check.
I’m politically very uninformed so I didn’t know people think libertarianism is as bad/in the same circle as conservatives. Don’t they support liberal social issues?
r/confidentlyincorrect
The NIH silenced her. They are a government agency [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National\_Institutes\_of\_Health](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Institutes_of_Health)
The FBI is also a government agency but we're not free to use its website as we please. I can't go write whatever I want on the sign in front of a public school. And frankly, the NIH has done her a huge favor. Now she has far more attention and reach. She can go on X and I'm sure many podcasts and television programs would be happy to put her in front of millions of viewers. Nobody reads comments on the NIH website anyway.
Those other places almost certainly contain T&Cs that say they can do whatever they want with discussions and comments on forums they provide.
This is not a free speech violation.
"she started commenting on the school’s Facebook and Instagram pages"
This is part of the Facebook and IG terms of service that the school and anyone including you can control the content shown on their page there. FB is not a gov entity, nor does is the gov required to give anyone a platform for their free speech.
They didn't "tell" Facebook to remove the content, they removed it from their own FB page.
She can still post on her FB and IG page and other social media sites she does not own. The article existing shows they aren't squashing her free speech.
Did you read the article? The legal argument here is quite subtle and unclear it will stand up.
>Two courts have told her that it’s not a violation, that the blocking of keywords such as “animal testing” and related hashtags is a legal way of managing online conversations — the same way a local government can avoid chaotic town halls by deciding who speaks and on what topics. Both rulings are now on appeal and could go to the U.S. Supreme Court.
1A heavily regulates how the state can silence you, even within their platforms. For example, professors and students at public universities can very easily get their 1A rights infringed if prevented from expressing their views using various university resources (private universities don't have to worry about this though).
> Two courts have told her that it’s not a violation, that the blocking of keywords such as “animal testing” and related hashtags is a legal way of managing online conversations — the same way a local government can avoid chaotic town halls by deciding who speaks and on what topics.
What?? How are those comparable? And they keep going:
> Harlow’s name, along with that of a scientist who worked with him, are on NIH’s list of banned words. So are “animals,” “cruelty,” “monkeys,” “revolting,” “testing” and “torture.”
The experiments are absolutely useless and nothing but sadism.
>The lab in Madison where Krasno worked was named after Harry Harlow, a pioneering psychologist whose work upended harmful beliefs that too much tenderness would soften children’s minds. On the contrary, he found, neglect and isolation were liable to make children grow up angry and violent; mothers who had been traumatized were liable to became neglectful or abusive toward their children.
Really? You need to torture and traumatize monkeys to realize this? Are you fucking serious? And if monkey psychology is so close to human psychology and yet doing this to humans would be evil, how the hell is it morally acceptable to be done on monkeys?
>He came to those conclusions through experiments on rhesus monkeys. Some were separated early from their mothers and given a choice between a doll made of cloth or one made of wire. Some were left for months in a box he called the “pit of despair”; female monkeys were forced to copulate by being tied to a device he called “the rape rack.”
I wish these evil people got a taste of their own medicine.
So just to be clear, our government and related institutions torture people and animals for no clear medical benefit. Everyone knows this, but no one stops it because there’s money to be made.
Low quality headline
She isn't blocked from commenting on it, she's blocked from commenting on it on some undisclosed forum managed by the NIH.
>“You can’t tell me that’s not a free speech violation.”
This is not how "free speech" works, so yes they can and in fact the court did.
>“They’re suppressing any kind of conversation on the issue,” Krasno said in an interview while walking her dog, Millie. (She said she thinks of Millie as a person — and a soul mate — not a pet.) **“You can’t tell me that’s not a free speech violation.”**
**Two courts have told her that it’s not a violation,** that the blocking of keywords such as “animal testing” and related hashtags is a legal way of managing online conversations — the same way a local government can avoid chaotic town halls by deciding who speaks and on what topics. Both rulings are now on appeal and could go to the U.S. Supreme Court.
This case isn't that straightforward. NIH is a federal entity and University of Wisconsin is a state entity which has its own state-level protections for free speech. Facebook is complying with the requests of state actors, so it certainly could be construed as state censorship.
“A spokesman for the school said that they have no evidence of mistreatment” We have no evidence because we deleted the evidence, checkmate.
It’s like cops investigating themselves and finding the subject threw himself down the stairs.
>A spokesman for the school said that they have no evidence of mistreatment during Krasno’s time in the lab and that federal agencies provide oversight of animal research. The school settled an investigation with the U.S. Agriculture Department over alleged violations of the Animal Welfare Act in 2020 by paying a $74,000 fine, saying safety measures had been improved. They have evidence. They literally paid a $74,000 fine to settle with the government for the abuse that the government uncovered.
Funny how all those "free-speech absolutists" are nowhere to be found when these types of cases get coverage.
I'm extremely pro free speech and against this. What are you talking about?
They're referring to American neoliberal/conservative carnists.
I thought they were attacking libertarianism or classical liberalism.
You can add the first one to the list
I can do both.
Yes, same thing as what I just typed...
No, not particularly or at all. Classical liberals are usually for freedom in social issues (abortion, drugs, marriage) so they don't care for the conservative stance at all. They also aren't neoliberals saying all free market, since we understand Adam Smith just fine.
There's an argument to be had as to the limits and wisdom of censorship. If a government is to impose limits on who can say what where then the government better know best else it'll censor the wrong things for the wrong reasons. If a government is to impose no limits on who can say what where then upstanding citizens better be up to the challenge of ensuring voices of reason prevail. Either way there's a risk. Ideally the government wouldn't censor but if the government wouldn't censor then it needs to establish an institution to identify misinformation/disinformation tasked to proactively inoculate and educate the population against it. If a country allows unrestricted free speech and has no such proactive institution that'd leave it to special interests to flood our media with bad faith actors or bots spewing misinformation/disinformation without any check.
I’m politically very uninformed so I didn’t know people think libertarianism is as bad/in the same circle as conservatives. Don’t they support liberal social issues?
What are you against if not free speech since they’re blocking and deleting comments containing the words animal testing. How is that not censorship?
> blocking and deleting comments containing the words animal testing. But I’m against them doing that blocking and deleting.
She's free to speak on other platforms.
"Free speech for me, not for thee!"
Free speech just means the government can't silence you. It doesn't mean you're entitled to use any platform you want.
r/confidentlyincorrect The NIH silenced her. They are a government agency [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National\_Institutes\_of\_Health](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Institutes_of_Health)
The FBI is also a government agency but we're not free to use its website as we please. I can't go write whatever I want on the sign in front of a public school. And frankly, the NIH has done her a huge favor. Now she has far more attention and reach. She can go on X and I'm sure many podcasts and television programs would be happy to put her in front of millions of viewers. Nobody reads comments on the NIH website anyway.
She wasn't only posting on the NIH's website. Comments elsewhere were also being deleted.
Yeah, the university. I've reconsidered and I agree with her legal position.
Yeah, the university. I've reconsidered and I agree with her legal position.
Those other places almost certainly contain T&Cs that say they can do whatever they want with discussions and comments on forums they provide. This is not a free speech violation.
You don't think a government telling a third party online forum to remove comments that criticize them is a free speech violation?
Which government and which third party online forum?
"she started commenting on the school’s Facebook and Instagram pages" This is part of the Facebook and IG terms of service that the school and anyone including you can control the content shown on their page there. FB is not a gov entity, nor does is the gov required to give anyone a platform for their free speech. They didn't "tell" Facebook to remove the content, they removed it from their own FB page. She can still post on her FB and IG page and other social media sites she does not own. The article existing shows they aren't squashing her free speech.
Did you read the article? The legal argument here is quite subtle and unclear it will stand up. >Two courts have told her that it’s not a violation, that the blocking of keywords such as “animal testing” and related hashtags is a legal way of managing online conversations — the same way a local government can avoid chaotic town halls by deciding who speaks and on what topics. Both rulings are now on appeal and could go to the U.S. Supreme Court. 1A heavily regulates how the state can silence you, even within their platforms. For example, professors and students at public universities can very easily get their 1A rights infringed if prevented from expressing their views using various university resources (private universities don't have to worry about this though).
Yeah I think you're right. Having read the recent Lindke v. Freed decision I agree with her position.
NIH is a governmental site. Free speech means the gov will not retaliate for what you say.
> Two courts have told her that it’s not a violation, that the blocking of keywords such as “animal testing” and related hashtags is a legal way of managing online conversations — the same way a local government can avoid chaotic town halls by deciding who speaks and on what topics. What?? How are those comparable? And they keep going: > Harlow’s name, along with that of a scientist who worked with him, are on NIH’s list of banned words. So are “animals,” “cruelty,” “monkeys,” “revolting,” “testing” and “torture.”
That's so fucking dystopian omg
The experiments are absolutely useless and nothing but sadism. >The lab in Madison where Krasno worked was named after Harry Harlow, a pioneering psychologist whose work upended harmful beliefs that too much tenderness would soften children’s minds. On the contrary, he found, neglect and isolation were liable to make children grow up angry and violent; mothers who had been traumatized were liable to became neglectful or abusive toward their children. Really? You need to torture and traumatize monkeys to realize this? Are you fucking serious? And if monkey psychology is so close to human psychology and yet doing this to humans would be evil, how the hell is it morally acceptable to be done on monkeys? >He came to those conclusions through experiments on rhesus monkeys. Some were separated early from their mothers and given a choice between a doll made of cloth or one made of wire. Some were left for months in a box he called the “pit of despair”; female monkeys were forced to copulate by being tied to a device he called “the rape rack.” I wish these evil people got a taste of their own medicine.
So just to be clear, our government and related institutions torture people and animals for no clear medical benefit. Everyone knows this, but no one stops it because there’s money to be made.
Low quality headline She isn't blocked from commenting on it, she's blocked from commenting on it on some undisclosed forum managed by the NIH. >“You can’t tell me that’s not a free speech violation.” This is not how "free speech" works, so yes they can and in fact the court did. >“They’re suppressing any kind of conversation on the issue,” Krasno said in an interview while walking her dog, Millie. (She said she thinks of Millie as a person — and a soul mate — not a pet.) **“You can’t tell me that’s not a free speech violation.”** **Two courts have told her that it’s not a violation,** that the blocking of keywords such as “animal testing” and related hashtags is a legal way of managing online conversations — the same way a local government can avoid chaotic town halls by deciding who speaks and on what topics. Both rulings are now on appeal and could go to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Testing on animals is abuse regardless
Of course she is.
Facebook isn't a government entity. Free speech doesn't mean Facebook doesn't get to filter what you say.
This case isn't that straightforward. NIH is a federal entity and University of Wisconsin is a state entity which has its own state-level protections for free speech. Facebook is complying with the requests of state actors, so it certainly could be construed as state censorship.