<>
The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit unanimously struck down Puerto Rico’s 2020 “fake news” statute on August 4, ruling that the law unconstitutionally restricts protected speech and violates the First Amendment. The decision invalidates a measure originally signed during the administration of former Governor Ricardo Rosselló and later amended under Governor Wanda Vázquez, which criminalized the intentional transmission of false information regarding imminent disasters or public safety threats.
First Circuit Rules Statute Violates First Amendment
According to the First Circuit’s ruling, the Puerto Rico statute imposed an impermissible content-based restriction on speech without sufficient justification. The court found that the law lacked essential safeguards found in traditional false alarm statutes. Writing for the court, the panel noted that the legislation could be used to prosecute individuals who opposed government policies during controversies such as the COVID-19 pandemic mask mandates, as well as protect speech involving satire, jokes, or fiction.
The statute made it a crime to knowingly provide a “false alarm” about imminent catastrophes or transmit false information that resulted in an imminent risk to safety, health, or property. Violators faced up to three years in prison and fines reaching $5,000. U.S. District Judge for the District of Puerto Rico had previously issued a permanent injunction against the law on March 31, 2023, citing an overbroad scope that risked politically motivated prosecutions. The First Circuit’s August decision confirmed that permanent injunction.
Journalists and ACLU Challenge Emergency Censorship
The legal challenge originated during the COVID-19 health crisis when the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the ACLU of Puerto Rico filed a lawsuit on behalf of independent journalists Sandra Rodríguez Cotto and Rafelli González Cotto. The plaintiffs argued the statute threatened investigative reporting that could cast the government in a negative light during public emergencies.
“As an independent journalist in Puerto Rico, my work is buscar la verdad y exigir responsabilidades a quienes ostentan el poder,” Sandra Rodríguez Cotto stated following the ruling. She noted that the statute served as a constant threat to independent reporting during crises.
Rafelli González Cotto echoed those concerns, emphasizing that the law undermined democratic participation. “Este caso va más allá del ejercicio del periodismo. Esto atenta contra el significado mismo de vivir en una sociedad democrática,” he said.
Legal Arguments and Government Scrutiny
Legal representatives for the plaintiffs welcomed the appellate court’s final determination. Fermín Arraiza Navas, legal director of the ACLU of Puerto Rico, stated that the law was designed to criminalize dissent and target the press during emergencies. Annette Martínez Orabona, executive director of the ACLU of Puerto Rico, added that the legislation discouraged necessary oversight during critical periods, including ongoing public infrastructure issues like the island’s drinking water service crisis.
Brian Hauss, senior staff attorney with the ACLU Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, noted that the surveillance function of the press is vital during emergencies. The First Circuit agreed, emphasizing that public access to uninhibited information is paramount when government accountability is most necessary.