Puerto Rico ‘false alarm’ case raises global press freedom concerns.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston 

By THE STAR STAFF

A federal appeals case in Puerto Rico is intensifying concerns among press‑freedom advocates after a recent Boston Globe opinion piece warned that the dispute could endanger press liberties across the United States and potentially worldwide. The case challenges Puerto Rico’s controversial “false alarm” law, a statute that criminalizes publishing information the government deems “false” during a declared emergency. 

The law grants the governor authority to declare emergencies and makes it a crime to raise a “false alarm” or publish “false” information in that period — a framework critics argue could be weaponized against journalists for honest reporting errors or stories government officials find unfavorable. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, which filed a friend‑of‑the‑court brief, warns that the law’s broad language gives authorities sweeping power to criminalize dissent.

At the height of the COVID‑19 pandemic, when Puerto Rico enacted its attempted ban on so‑called “fake news,” two journalists — Sandra Rodríguez Cotto and Rafelli González Cotto — feared that the statute would expose them to prosecution simply for publishing critical reporting about the government, its officials, or its emergency‑response measures. Under the law, anyone accused could face up to three years in prison and thousands of dollars in fines.

The law targeted anyone alleged to have issued a “false alarm” or shared false information that posed a risk to life, health, or property during a declared public emergency. In May 2020, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the ACLU of Puerto Rico filed suit on behalf of Rodríguez Cotto and González Cotto to challenge the constitutionality of the measure. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston — the same court being watched closely today — heard oral arguments in the case in October.

“I believed it was essential to pursue this litigation because the government had crossed a line that threatened the very core of democratic participation,” González Cotto said at the time. “When the state gives itself the power to decide what information is true or false, especially during an emergency, it opens the door to censorship, intimidation, and the silencing of legitimate scrutiny.”

In its recent opinion piece, the Boston Globe warned that a ruling upholding Puerto Rico’s law could create a dangerous legal template for regulating speech during emergencies. Because no established precedent limits a U.S. president’s ability to declare a national emergency for similar purposes, the Globe argues that the law, if validated, could offer a future administration “legal cover for emergency action against the free press in the United States as a whole.” The law allows the government to determine what constitutes “false” information — mirroring emergency power structures used in other countries to stifle investigative journalism. Advocates fear that such a precedent could embolden both U.S. states and foreign governments to adopt similar restrictions on the press.

Because emergency‑based “misinformation” laws exist in multiple countries, a U.S. appellate court decision upholding Puerto Rico’s statute could legitimize broad censorship frameworks elsewhere. Press‑freedom groups warn that the decision could undermine long‑standing First Amendment protections and weaken democratic accountability at a moment when accurate reporting during crises is most essential.

The First Circuit’s ruling is still pending.