Previous 19 / 109 Next

SUP-REP-542/2015 Y ACUMULADO A efecto de atender de manera exhaustiva los agravios planteados por los partidos políticos recurrente, se seguirá la siguiente metodología de análisis: 1. Alcances de la veda electoral. ¿Cuál es el alcance subjetivo y material de la prohibición prevista en el artículo 251, párrafos 3, 4 y 6, de la Ley General de Instituciones y Procedimientos Electorales? 2. Libertad de expresión en redes sociales (Twitter). ¿Cuál es el estándar que se debe observar en el contexto de un proceso electoral respecto de la información difundida en internet y en particular en redes sociales como Twitter? 3. Características de la red social Twitter. ¿Los tweets enviados por los sujetos denunciados durante el periodo de veda electoral se emitieron de manera espontánea o como parte de una estrategia publicitaria de propaganda? 4. Responsabilidad de los sujetos denunciados. ¿Cuál es el grado de responsabilidad de las personas famosas denunciadas, del candidato y del Partido Verde Ecologista de México? 4.5. Estudio de los agravios. 4.5.1. Alcances de la veda electoral. El artículo 251, párrafos 3, 4 y 6, de la Ley General de Instituciones y Procedimientos Electorales señalan: Artículo 251. … 19

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

MOREA v. Party of Institutional Revolutionary (SUP 2015 REP 544 499367)

Judgment

Question Presented: Whether the dissemination of campaign materials on twitter accounts of candidate and alternate candidates violate the electoral silence laws?

Alleged Acts: Several candidates and alternate candidates, including Raul Osorio Alonzo and Arto Escobar y Vega, dissemination campaign information on their Twitter accounts in an official capacity. In particular, Raul Osorio Alonzo’s posts included links to political parties, but Arto Escobar y Vega’s posts did not include links of calls to vote.

Summary: The court stated that all candidates and alternate candidates have the duty to adjust their social media posts to the letter of the Constitution. The parties argued that they themselves sought to disengage in the election campaign during the mandated silence period, but the court stated that the political party was also tasked with monitoring its members. The court found that the political party did not sufficient inhibit of denounce the behavior and thus could not be exempt from liability. However, actions of members may be exempt from political party liability instances where the political party has sufficiently discouraged the actions taken because this will not necessarily impact the integrity of the election results.

Conclusion: The court ultimately revoked the prior judgment and permitted the responsible authority to use a new one against the Green Ecologist Party for its failure to monitor candidates making political statements during the electoral silence period.

Legal Issue(s)

Electoral Integrity
Social Media

Region: Americas

Country: Mexico

Language of Decision

Spanish

Court: Electoral Court

Election Type: General

Date of decision: Apr 20, 2016

Geolocation

Latitude: 19.43318644

Longitude: -99.13401778

: Geolocation

Primary Documents

SUP-REP-0542-2015.pdf
Spanish
Download View

Election Judgments - IFES

Select target paragraph3

MOREA v. Party of Institutional Revolutionary (SUP 2015 REP 544 499367)

Primary Documents

Notifications