Anterior 40 / 57 Próximo

AMPARO EN REVISIÓN 136/2021 es una persona que se dedica a difundir dicha información a la sociedad”. En otras palabras “el juez de amparo debe verificar si, prima facie, se genera un efecto obstaculizador de participación en la deliberación pública.”18 131. Esta Primera Sala ha determinado que la prohibición de restricciones indirectas a la libertad de expresión tiene el propósito de inhabilitar al Estado para imponer medidas que aunque neutras en apariencia tengan el potencial de generar un “disuasivo” o “inhibidor” para evitar que las personas participen de manera abierta, robusta y desinhibida en la deliberación pública; de ahí que esta Corte haya concluido que este tipo de prohibición tenga una estrecha relación con la dimensión colectiva de la libertad de expresión. 132. Para clarificar la racionalidad del parámetro de control, conviene recordar cómo las normas prohibitivas no sólo motivan a sus destinatarios a abstenerse de realizar la conducta prohibida, sino también a tomar precauciones adicionales para evitar ubicarse en la zona de riesgo alrededor de la aplicación de las mismas por parte de las autoridades encargadas de su aplicación. 133. En efecto, toda legislación que establezca prohibiciones y sanciones genera efectos inhibidores o disuasivos de otras conductas relacionadas o conexas que se ubicarían en la zona de fiscalización de las autoridades, toda vez que es razonable que las personas destinatarias de dichas prohibiciones tomen precauciones para evitar las consecuencias negativas de su incumplimiento. Por ejemplo, quien busque evitar actualizar un delito fiscal es muy probable que busque tomar medidas adicionales para asumir precauciones contables que lo lleven a evitar casos dudosos para las autoridades fiscalizadoras. 134. Así, todas las normas generan un efecto inhibidor de ciertas conductas que no están expresamente reguladas por ellas porque la aplicación coactiva de las normas jurídicas produce incentivos para que sus destinatarios se inhiban en 18 Tesis aislada XXXI/2016 de la Primera Sala, visible en la página 678 del Libro 27 (febrero de 2016), Tomo I de la Gaceta del Semanario Judicial de la Federación, de rubro: “INTERES LEGÍTIMO EN AMPARO CONTRA LEYES PENALES. SE ACTUALIZA ANTE NORMAS CUYA MERA EXISTENCIA GENERA UN EFECTO DISUASIVO EN EL EJERCICIO DE LA LIBERTAD DE EXPRESIÓN Y EL DERECHO FUNDAMENTAL DE ACCESO A LA INFORMACIÓN.” 40

Seleccionar párrafo de destino3

● ● ●

Petitioner v. Federal Institute for Telecommunications and Radio Broadcasting

Case Law

Country

Mexico

Country Location

Latitud: 22.450275925480113

Longitud: -99.67675799131331

Country Location (vinculado Case Law): Mexico

Decision Date: 5 oct 2022

Case Status: Cerrado

Case Outcome (Procedural)

Dismissed

Case Outcome (Disposition)

Judgment in Favor of Defendant

Keywords

Access to Internet
Digital Rights
Internet Service Providers

Judicial Body: Corte Suprema [corte de última instancia/casación]

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

Related Law

Constitución
Ley de Seguridad Nacional

Source Name and URL: Global Freedom of Expression

Collection

Columbia

Date Updated: 19 jul 2024

Documentos primarios

Judgment (Spanish)
Spanish
Descargar Ver

CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law

Seleccionar párrafo de destino3

Petitioner v. Federal Institute for Telecommunications and Radio Broadcasting

Documentos primarios

Notificaciones