Overview
- At least one federal court in Puebla granted amparo 828/2025, declaring Article 480 unconstitutional for the petitioner and barring its application in that case.
- The judgment says the provision’s broad and ambiguous wording enables discretionary enforcement, functions as state censorship, and creates a “zone of risk” that drives self‑censorship.
- Article 480 defined “ciberasedio” as using digital tools like social networks or email to insult or offend with the intent to cause harm, a description the court found insufficiently precise.
- Propuesta Cívica and the National Council for Strategic Litigation brought these challenges on behalf of journalists, defenders and communicators, presenting this as the first of six cases they filed.
- While the protection directly covers only the petitioners, the reasoning is a persuasive precedent that could guide future rulings and adds pressure on Puebla’s Congress to revise the statute.