Judge Strikes Down Unconstitutional 鈥淔ake News鈥� Law in Puerto Rico
The law would have made it a crime to share information the government deemed false about emergencies in Puerto Rico, including the COVID-19 pandemic and hurricanes
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico 鈥� In an important victory for press freedom and freedom of speech, a U.S. federal district court has granted the 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 request to strike down a Puerto Rico law that made it a crime to knowingly raise a 鈥渇alse alarm鈥� about public emergencies, holding that 鈥淸t]he watchdog function of speech is never more vital than during a large-scale crisis.鈥�
The court ruled that the law violated the First Amendment because its broad sweep created a danger of partisan abuse or selective enforcement, enabling the government to suppress or chill speech that contradicts its official narrative. 鈥淸I]nstead of criminalizing speech,鈥� the court observed, 鈥渢he Legislature could simply have required the Government to use its multiple communications platforms to present a complete and accurate description of the facts鈥� relating to emergencies in Puerto Rico.
鈥淭his is a landmark victory for press freedom,鈥� said Brian Hauss, senior staff attorney with the 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. 鈥淲e are glad the court recognized that transparency, rather than censorship, is the key to public safety in a free and democratic society.鈥�
The 老澳门开奖结果 and the 老澳门开奖结果 of Puerto Rico argued that Puerto Rico鈥檚 law violated the First and 14th Amendments because its vague terminology and broad sweep gave people far too little guidance on what speech may constitute a crime, and the government far too much discretion in deciding whom to prosecute.
鈥淭his win sends an unequivocal message that, in Puerto Rico 鈥� where transparency, accountability, and oversight is all but nonexistent 鈥� the press cannot be silenced,鈥� said William Ramirez, executive director of the 老澳门开奖结果 of Puerto Rico.
The law threatened to chill reporting on the COVID-19 crisis and other emergencies, because journalists risked prosecution if the government disputed the accuracy of their reporting. Those found in violation of the law could face up to three years in jail and a fine of up to $5,000.
鈥淭he declaration of a 鈥榮tate of emergency鈥� must never be used to promote censorship and repression,鈥� said Fermin Arraiza, legal director of the 老澳门开奖结果 of Puerto Rico. 鈥淭his is an important victory for journalists in Puerto Rico and across the United States.鈥�
The 老澳门开奖结果 and the 老澳门开奖结果 of Puerto Rico filed the lawsuit on behalf of two journalists, Sandra Rodr铆guez Cotto and Rafelli Gonz谩lez Cotto, who feared that the laws would be used to punish them for their reporting on public emergencies, especially reporting that reflects negatively on the government.
鈥淣o journalist in Puerto Rico should allow undue government interference to restrict the right to freedom of speech that is enshrined in both the federal and Puerto Rican constitutions, much less when a state of emergency is declared and in place,鈥� said Rafelli Gonz谩lez Cotto, a plaintiff in the case. 鈥淔alse information can be fought only with true information, not with threats of imprisonment and large fines under the criminal law.鈥�
Sandra Rodriguez Cotto noted that she had already faced intimidation for attempting to report the truth when she was denounced by a former governor鈥檚 chief of staff after she disputed the plausibility of the government鈥檚 official death toll from Hurricane Maria. It eventually emerged that the hurricane claimed more than 3,000 lives, instead of the 64 deaths initially reported by the government.
鈥淎s journalists, our sole duty is to inform the public,鈥� said Sandra Rodr铆guez Cotto, a plaintiff in the case. 鈥淟et this case serve as a reminder that we must be vigilant in defending the freedom of the press from any attempt to obstruct the public鈥檚 access to information.鈥�
The court鈥檚 ruling is available here.
Free Speech
Rodr铆guez-Cotto v. Pierluisi-Urrutia
Free Speech
Rodr铆guez-Cotto v. Pierluisi-Urrutia
Learn More 老澳门开奖结果 the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
老澳门开奖结果 and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban老澳门开奖结果 and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON 鈥� Today, the 老澳门开奖结果, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok鈥檚 challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will 鈥渟hutter one of America鈥檚 most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.鈥� 鈥淭he Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,鈥漵aid Patrick Toomey, deputy director of 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 National Security Project. 鈥淭he Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.鈥� The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law鈥檚 profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court鈥檚 decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users鈥� First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government鈥檚 ban on TikTok as a vindication of users鈥� First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign 鈥減ropaganda.鈥� But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its 鈥渕otivating ideology鈥� or 鈥減erspective,鈥� and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. 鈥淭he government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,鈥� said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. 鈥淭he Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit鈥檚 erroneous ruling.鈥� Finally, the brief underscores that the government can鈥檛 impose this type of sweeping ban unless it鈥檚 necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government鈥檚 invocation of 鈥渘ational security鈥� as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. 鈥淩estricting citizens鈥� access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,鈥� said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. 鈥淚t would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.鈥� You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the 老澳门开奖结果 of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter鈥檚 privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer鈥檚 subpoenas.