Background
Puerto Rico enacted Law 20 to promote public safety during emergencies and disasters. Article 5.14(a), as amended in 2020, made it a crime during a governor-declared emergency or disaster to knowingly disseminate a false warning or alarm related to the imminent occurrence of a catastrophe when the conduct puts a person’s life, health, bodily integrity, or safety at imminent risk, or endangers public or private property. Violations could result in imprisonment and a fine, with enhanced felony punishment when the statement caused more than $10,000 in damages.
Investigative journalists Sandra Rodríguez-Cotto and Rafelli González-Cotto challenged the provision under the First and Fourteenth Amendments after reporting critically on Puerto Rico’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The district court held Article 5.14(a) unconstitutional and permanently enjoined its enforcement. Puerto Rico officials appealed, arguing that knowingly or recklessly false statements were unprotected, that the law was content-neutral, and that it would survive strict scrutiny in any event.
The Court’s Holding
The First Circuit affirmed. It held that false statements do not constitute a general category of speech excluded from First Amendment protection. The criminal-defamation decisions on which the government relied applied to defamatory falsehoods causing a legally cognizable reputational harm; Article 5.14(a), by contrast, targeted falsity without fitting within defamation or another historically recognized category of unprotected speech.
The court further held that Article 5.14(a) was content-based because officials had to examine a statement’s meaning and truthfulness, its relationship to an imminent catastrophe, and its effect on listeners to determine whether a violation occurred. Applying strict scrutiny, the court concluded that the law was not narrowly tailored to Puerto Rico’s compelling public-safety interest. It required no actual harm, did not require knowledge that harm was likely, left “imminent risk” undefined, could reach incredible claims, jokes, satire, or fiction, and was not supported by evidence establishing the necessary causal link between the restricted speech and the harm to be prevented. The government also failed to show that counterspeech or other less speech-restrictive measures would be inadequate.
Key Takeaways
- Knowingly or recklessly false speech is not categorically outside the First Amendment merely because it is false.
- A law is content-based when enforcement requires officials to assess a statement’s truth, subject matter, or effect on listeners.
- Puerto Rico failed to prove that Article 5.14(a) was narrowly tailored or necessary to protect public safety during declared emergencies.
Why It Matters
The decision limits the government’s ability to criminalize alleged misinformation during emergencies, when disputed facts may be difficult to verify and scrutiny of official conduct is especially important. Even a substantial public-safety interest cannot sustain a broadly framed, content-based speech restriction without evidence of necessity and meaningful limits connecting liability to foreseeable harm.
The ruling also underscores that statutes addressing false alarms or hoaxes need carefully defined subjects, contexts, harms, and causation requirements. A scienter requirement alone does not make a broad prohibition on false speech constitutional.