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.