Previous 33 / 57 Next

AMPARO EN REVISIÓN 136/2021 intrumentos de imprenta de un periódico o el papel necesario para publicar revistas o libros, de tal manera que con dicha privación se imposibilite a un determinado conjunto de personas expresarse por no tener una alternativa de acceso a los canales de deliberación pública, o bien, que esa privación de bienes sólo puede tener como motivación la penalización de ciertas ideas o puntos de vista, en este caso, la disposición legal debe declarase inconstitucional por violar la prohibición del artículo 7° constitucional. La aplicación de esta regla requerirá de una evaluación pormenorizada y cuidadosa para determinar, en la época de las nuevas tecnologías, cuáles de los intrumentos generan esta afectación indirecta evidente en los derechos humanos a la libertad de expresión y acceso a la información. 110. Sin embargo, fuera de estos casos claros, esta Sala considera que la prohibición no opera como una regla dura, sino como un principio, cuya aplicación requiere de un estándar de escrutinio, el cual ahora se procede a desarrollar. 111. Como lo hemos determinado en distintos precedentes, mientras la regla tiene una estructura condicional que es cerrada y que aplica a la manera “todo o nada”, ya que liga una hipótesis con una consecuencia normativa, el principio tiene una estructura abierta como mandato de optimización, que requiere de una individualización al caso concreto a través de algún estándar de escrutinio.13 112. Ahora bien, para fijar el estándar de escrutinio aplicable, esta Sala estima necesario relacionar la prohibición constitucional del artículo 7 constitucional con su doctrina sobre las restricciones indirectas a la libertad de expresión y acceso a la información. 13 Ver la tesis aislada X/2022 de esta Primera Sala, visible en la página 1724 del Libro II (marzo de 2022) Tomo II de la Gaceta del Semanario Judicial de la Federación, de rubro: “LIBERTADES ECONÓMICAS. LAS INTERFERENCIAS A ESTAS LIBERTADES SE CONTROLAN MEDIANTE EL ESCRUTINIO ORDINARIO Y NO POR UN TEST DE PROPORCIONALIDAD O ESCRUTINIO ESTRICTO.” 33

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