Previous 29 / 57 Next

AMPARO EN REVISIÓN 136/2021 época actual el Estado no es la principal amenaza, sino el medio para desvanecer obstáculos a su ejercicio. 96. Con base en lo anterior, debe concluirse que el parámetro de control constitucional -fijado con los artículos 6, 7 constitucionales, 13 de la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos y 19 del Pacto Internacional de Derechos Civiles y Políticos- tiene un ámbito de proyección más amplio que el reconocido en la sentencia recurrida, pues con independencia de la materia en la que se emita el acto reclamado, dichos derechos se extienden para proteger las distintas facetas del proceso comunicativo, esto es, desde su formación en cada individuo hasta su difusión y libre intercambio masivo, tanto de manera informal y espontánea como a través de prácticas más formales (como son los medios de comunicación). 97. De lo expuesto se obtiene que los artículos 6 y 7 constitucionales, junto con las disposiciones convencionales citadas, establecen derechos sustantivos con un ámbito de aplicación expansivo que se proyectan sobre la totalidad de las materias, siendo uno de sus principales espacios de aplicación de esos derechos el sector de las telecomunicaciones y radiodifusión, pues en ese ámbito es en el cual se encuentran las leyes, regulaciones y actos que determinan las condiciones de prestación de los servicios públicos de funcionamiento de los medios de comunicación, es decir, el ámbito de reglamentación de la dimensión colectiva de los derechos humanos de acceso a la información y la libertad de expresión. 98. Como lo ha determinado la Segunda Sala en diversos precedentes, “el internet ha pasado a ser un medio fundamental para que las personas ejerzan su derecho a la libertad de opinión y expresión, atento a sus características singulares, como su velocidad, alcance mundial y relativo anonimato. Por tanto, en atención a ese derecho humano, se reconoce en el orden jurídico nacional y en el derecho internacional de los derechos humanos, existe el principio relativo a que el flujo de información por internet debe restringirse lo 29

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Petitioner v. Federal Institute for Telecommunications and Radio Broadcasting

Case Law

Country

Mexico

Country Location

Latitude: 22.450275925480113

Longitude: -99.67675799131331

Country Location (linked Case Law): Mexico

Decision Date: Oct 5, 2022

Case Status: Closed

Case Outcome (Procedural)

Dismissed

Case Outcome (Disposition)

Judgment in Favor of Defendant/ Acquittal

Keywords

Access to Internet
Digital Rights
Internet Service Providers

Judicial Body: Supreme Court (court of final appeal)

Court Name: Supreme Court of Mexico

Case Number: Amparo 136/2021

Case Summary: The Supreme Court of Mexico held that the seizure of devices that provide internet services without a license did not violate the right to freedom of expression and access to information. Article 305 of the Federal Telecommunications and Broadcasting Law establishes that persons who provide telecommunications or broadcasting services without a license or authorization shall forfeit in favor of the Nation the property, installations, and equipment used in the commission of such infractions. The petitioner, who had devices that were used to provide internet services without the required license, claimed that the seizure violated the right to freedom of expression and access to information because the internet allowed people to express their ideas and receive information. Additionally, the petitioner referred to Article 7 of the Mexican Constitution, which establishes that “in no case property used for the dissemination of information, opinions, and ideas may be seized as an instrument of crime”. The Federal Institute for Telecommunications and Radio Broadcasting argued that there was no censorship nor restrictions to the dissemination of information, but rather a punitive measure against an illegal provision of services.

The Court held that the prohibition of the confiscation of equipment and properties used for the dissemination of information, opinions, and ideas only applies as a “hard rule” when those goods are substantially linked to the aforementioned purposes (for example, printing instruments of a newspaper or the paper needed to publish magazines or books) or when the seizure is used to censor certain ideas or points of view. Further, the Court held that devices used for the dissemination of information, opinions, and ideas should not be confused with any infrastructure or devices used for the provision of public services, and that, here, the seizure of goods did not seek to penalize a certain point of view, nor prevent a certain group of people from expressing their opinions. Additionally, the Court held that the petitioner did not engage in the provision of these irregular services to disseminate certain information, but rather they intended to make these services available to people to obtain an economic benefit. The Court noted that licenses for the provision of public telecommunications and broadcasting services are instruments that allow States to guarantee that public services, such as the internet, are provided under conditions of competition, quality, plurality, universal coverage, continuity, free access, and without arbitrary interferences for the benefit of all persons. In the Court’s opinion, the legal framework is clear and neutral, and the sanctions established to ensure its effectiveness pursue a legitimate aim and are reasonable and proportionate.

Case Significance: The decision of the Mexican Supreme Court allowed the seizure of devices that were being used to provide internet services without an appropriate license. It also clarified the standards and levels of scrutiny that must be used when analyzing these types of sanctions. Furthermore, the Court dsicussed the importance of the right to freedom of expression and the balance that must be struck when it comes to licenses and authorizations. However, it held that the seizure of goods used in the illegal provision of internet services could not be considered a disproportionate measure even in places where the internet is not easily accessible, as the petitioner argued in this case. Even if the contested measure only affects the instruments that are strictly related to the commission of the infraction, there are less restrictive alternatives to achieve the same goals, especially considering the importance of providing internet in low-access zones. A possible less restrictive alternative instead of the seizure could be, for example, a mere fine and an order or recommendation to request the appropriate license.

The decision establishes a binding or persuasive precedent within its jurisdiction.

Related Caselaw (self)

Related Law

Constitution of Mexico
National Security Law of Mexico

Source URL: Global Freedom of Expression

Collection

Columbia

Date Updated: Jul 19, 2024

Primary Documents

Judgment (Spanish)
Spanish
Download View

CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law

Select target paragraph3

Petitioner v. Federal Institute for Telecommunications and Radio Broadcasting

Primary Documents

Notifications