In October 2025, Ricardo Salinas Pliego, chairman of Grupo Salinas and TV Azteca, dominated social media headlines.His statements against the United Nations (UN) reopened the debate between free speech, censorship, and civil liability for public figures.
The central question is simple yet complex: where does freedom of opinion end and legal responsibility begin?
Free speech and its constitutional foundation
Freedom of expression is a pillar of the Mexican Constitution, enshrined in Articles 6 and 7.It allows every person to disseminate ideas without prior censorship, but within limits derived from human dignity, public order, and respect for others’ rights.
Legal boundaries defined by law
Article 6 states that expressions which violate human dignity or promote hate speech are not protected.The right to speak freely does not include the right to defame or spread falsehoods.
Can the UN censor a Mexican figure?
Legally, the UN has no authority to censor in Mexico.
Its role is advisory and ethical, not coercive.However, its resolutions influence Mexican law through treaties such as the American Convention on Human Rights, which establishes that freedom of speech must be exercised with social responsibility.
Censorship vs Civil Liability
Understanding what censorship means
True censorship — state control before speech is published — is prohibited by the Mexican Constitution.Still, individuals can be held responsible after the fact if their words violate civil law protections like honor or reputation.
Consequences for moral damage
Article 1916 of the Federal Civil Code states that whoever spreads statements that injure another’s reputation may face civil liability for moral damage.
Free speech does not imply immunity from legal accountability.
Mexican jurisprudence on freedom of expression
Key Supreme Court precedents
Mexico’s Supreme Court (SCJN) has ruled that public figures must tolerate a higher degree of criticism due to their influence in society.
Yet, that criticism must not cross into malicious falsehood or hate speech.
Judicial doctrine has established the balance between free speech and human dignity.
Impact of international law
The UN and the Inter‑American Court of Human Rights consider free speech a foundation of democracy.However, they affirm that this freedom cannot be invoked to justify hate speech, violence, or attacks on human rights.
Social media and hate speech
Digital platforms have become modern public forums where the line between opinion and defamation is blurred.Hate speech — any content that incites discrimination or violence — is not protected by the Mexican Constitution.
Platforms like X and Facebook can remove offensive posts without infringing constitutional rights, as they are private entities.
Legal defense mechanisms for public figures
Public figures who suffer defamation online can file civil claims for moral damage, request correction or retraction, and seek financial compensation.
Lawyers advise preserving digital evidence such as screenshots and metadata to support a civil action.
International comparison
In the United States, the First Amendment protects even offensive speech, while Europe applies stricter rules against hate speech and public defamation.
Mexico occupies a middle ground: it values freedom of expression but places it under the umbrella of human rights and civil respect.
Conclusion
Freedom of speech is the foundation of any democracy, but it should never be used to spread hatred or violence.
The Mexican Constitution protects expression while laws and international treaties define clear limits between opinion and defamation.
The UN does not censor, it advocates for discourse based on truth and human dignity.